JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Out of captioned five petitions, four petitions i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 11378 of 2014 to 11381 of 2014, were listed on 4.7.2016 in the Cause List for Final Hearing. At the time of hearing of the said four petitions, learned counsel for the Nagarpalika informed the Court that the Nagarpalika has also filed petition against the award passed by the learned Labour Court and the petition filed by the Nagarpalika would be listed for Final Hearing on 19.7.2016. On said ground, adjournment in respect of four petitions were requested for, however, the Court considered it appropriate to call for the record of Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014 and to hear the said petition alongwith other four petitions in view of the fact that the four petitions were already listed for Final hearing and the fifth petition also arose from the same award which was subject matter of challenge in the four petitions. Therefore, with consent of learned counsel for the Nagarpalika and with consent of learned advocates for the workmen, the office was directed, vide order dated 4.7.2016 to list the papers of Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014 before the Court alongwith the other four petitions. 2. In view of the said order, the four petitions are listed for Final Hearing today, however, today, Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014 is not listed despite the order dated 4.7.2016. Under the circumstances, with consent of learned counsel for the Nagarpalika and learned advocates for the workmen, the file of Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014 is called for and the office is directed to reflect Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014 in today's cause list for Final Hearing. 3. Heard Mr. Gogia, Mr. Kalvani, Mr. Suchak, Mr. Ramani, learned advocates for the workmen, and Mr. Trivedi and Mr. Dave, learned advocates for the Nagarpalika. 4. 3. Heard Mr. Gogia, Mr. Kalvani, Mr. Suchak, Mr. Ramani, learned advocates for the workmen, and Mr. Trivedi and Mr. Dave, learned advocates for the Nagarpalika. 4. So far as the four petitions filed by the workmen i.e. Special Civil Application No. 11378 of 2014 to 11381 of 2014 are concerned, the said petitions have been taken out against the common award dated 1.1.2014 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1998, 55 of 1998, 62 of 1998 and 185 of 2006 whereby the learned Tribunal directed the Nagarpalika to grant status of permanency (w.e.f. 1.1.2014) to the workmen concerned in the said four reference cases and also directed the Nagarpalika to pay salary to the said persons at par with regular and permanent employees. The concerned workmen are aggrieved by the award and direction so far as it denies the benefit for the past period (i.e. for the period from the date of demand until 15.2.2014). 5. So far as the Nagarpalika is concerned, in its petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014, the Nagarpalika has also challenged the same common award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 54 of 1998, 55 of 1998, 62 of 1998 and 185 of 2006 with aforesaid directions. The Nagarpalika feels aggrieved by the award and claims that the directions are unwarranted and unjustified. The concerned workmen are aggrieved by the award and direction so far as it denies the benefit for the past period, i.e. for the period from the date of demand until 15.2.2014. 6. In light of the details which emerged during the hearing of the petitions it has become clear that this five petitions can be disposed of on limited ground instead of entering into detailed discussion about rival contentions against the impugned direction. 7. To put in nutshell, as a result of hearing of the petition it has emerged that the order of reference passed by appropriate government was defective and the learned tribunal decided the reference cases without taking into account and without resolving the issue related to the defect in the award. 8. Following discussion and the details mentioned below bring out the error in the order of reference and proceedings before learned Tribunal. 9. 8. Following discussion and the details mentioned below bring out the error in the order of reference and proceedings before learned Tribunal. 9. So far as the facts and details related to period prior to the date of orders of reference are concerned there is no dispute between the parties. On this count it is relevant to note and mention that:- (a) on or around 29.6.1995 the Municipality had issued advertisement in daily newspaper and invited applications for filing up schedule tribe backlog in different posts. The appointments were to be made on different posts for clearing backlog of reservation in category of Schedule Tribe. The workmen concerned in these petitions had submitted their application in response to the said advertisement. (b) After completion of regular selection process the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 11378 of 2014 to 11381 of 2014 were selected and appointment orders dated 24.8.1995 and 25.8.1995 were issued and accordingly the said persons were appointed by the Nagar Palika. (c) However, immediately thereafter defects and irregularities in the selection process were noticed. (d) Simultaneously, one of the candidates had lodged complaint/application in September 1995 before the Collector and raised issue with regard to the defects and irregularities in the selection process. (e) After considering relevant aspects related to the selection procedure and appointment effected by the Nagar Palika, Collector passed order suspending appointments and directed the Nagar Palika to restore the status-quo ante. (f) On the other hand, a meeting of general body of Nagar Palika was convened and a resolution was passed by general body of the Nagar Palika where the general body took note of various defects and irregularities in the selection process including the fact that the committee appointed for the process of selection was authorized only to conduct and complete selection process whereas the committee went ahead and also issued appointments orders which rendered appointments defective. (g) Various other defects and irregularities in the recruitment process were also taken note of and after deliberation general body passed resolution dated 11.9.1995 to cancel the appointments and accordingly the appointments were withdrawn/cancelled. 10. Consequently within period of about 10/12 days from the date of appointment i.e. on 11.9.1995 the service of the concerned workmen were put to an end. 11. 10. Consequently within period of about 10/12 days from the date of appointment i.e. on 11.9.1995 the service of the concerned workmen were put to an end. 11. It is necessary to note that before the said resolution dated 11.9.1995 was passed, the Nagar Palika had already complied the direction issued by the collector vide its order dated 8.9.1995 and terminated appointments of the 15 persons i.e. concerned claimants before learned tribunal (copy of the said order dated 8.9.1995 is on record of Special Civil Application No. 8529 of 2014). 12. Subsequently somewhere in 1995 the concerned persons filed writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 7717 of 1995 against said termination order dated 8.9.1995. 13. This Court (Coram: S.K. Keshote, J. as his Lordships then was) rejected the petition vide order dated 10.4.1996. The said order dated 10.4.1996 reads thus:- "Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 1. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the appointment of the petitioners made under order dated 24.8.1995 was subject to the approval of the General Board. It is also not in dispute that the General Board has passed resolution No. 97 on 11.9.1995 by which the appointments were not approved. On non-approval of the appointment, the consequential effect, which has been rightly there, was termination of the service of the petitioners. This order of termination is under challenge in the petition. The appointment was a conditional one which has been accepted by the petitioners. On non-approval of the said by the General Board, termination of the services of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal. 2. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. 14. Accordingly the challenge against the termination order dated 8.9.1995 failed. 15. At this stage, it is necessary to note that in the said Special Civil Application No. 7717 of 1995 at some stage ad-interim relief was granted. However vide order dated 10.4.1996 the said ad-interim relief was vacated. Thereafter concerned claimant filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 458 of 1996 against said order dated 10.4.1996 in Special Civil Application No. 7717 of 1995. The said Letters Patent Appeal came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2004. The said order dated order reads thus:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Thereafter concerned claimant filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 458 of 1996 against said order dated 10.4.1996 in Special Civil Application No. 7717 of 1995. The said Letters Patent Appeal came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2004. The said order dated order reads thus:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, both the learned counsel for the parties had left it to the court for passing appropriate order. Against the order dated 10.04.1996 passed by the learned single Judge of this court dismissing the special civil application No. 7717 of 1995, the appellants-petitioners have filed this appeal which is admitted and pending since long for about one decade. Civil application No. 4184 of 1996 filed in this appeal is already finally disposed of by the Hon'ble First court way back on 02.07.1996 by ordering that no termination of the service of the applicants - appellants till the main appeal is finally disposed of. In pursuance of the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this court, the appellants - original petitioners are still in service. Their services were sought to be terminated by an order dated 08.09.1995 Annexure 'D' to the main petition. Initially, the learned single Judge of this court stayed the order of their termination but later on, after bi-parte hearing, dismissed the petition and vacated the ad-interim relief. As stated earlier, in civil application filed in this appeal, their services were protected by interim order, that is how all the appellants - petitioners have continued to remain in service till today. It is not in dispute that reference filed by the appellants before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot is still pending. In that view of the matter, we are of the considering opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this appeal alive any more. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in view of the reference pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. In that view of the matter, we are of the considering opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this appeal alive any more. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in view of the reference pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. It is true that the learned single Judge has dismissed their petition on 10.04.1996 but when the reference is pending before the Industrial Tribunal, then we are sure that the same shall not come in the way of the appellants and the Industrial Tribunal will decide the reference strictly in accordance with law on the material placed before it without being swayed away by the rejection order dated 10.04.1996 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. Once we dispose off this appeal on this ground of the reference being pending before the learned Tribunal, then their services which are so far protected has to be protected till the final disposal of the reference by the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, interim relief granted earlier on civil application No. 4184 of 1996 restraining the respondents from terminating their services shall continue till the reference is finally heard and decided by the Industrial Tribunal. Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2737 OF 2004: Learned counsel Mrs. Bhatt does not press her civil application No. 2737 of 2004 in view of the aforesaid order. Accordingly, it is disposed of as not pressed. 16. It appears that during pendency of the appeal but after the Special Civil Application No. 7717 of 1995 was dismissed vide order dated 10.4.1996 the concerned persons had initiated reference proceedings for which appropriate government had passed three orders of reference dated 20.4.1998 and one order of reference came to be passed after the Letters Patent Appeal No. 458 of 1996 was disposed of vide order dated 22.12.2004 whereas fourth order of reference was passed on 23.8.2006. 17. On reading award it comes out that the said orders of reference are identically worded and the appropriate government had referred the claim of the workman in following terms: 18. Whether the services of the workmen M/s. should be made permanent from the date of completion of probation period and whether the concerned workman should be granted benefits at par with regular and permanent employees. 19. Whether the services of the workmen M/s. should be made permanent from the date of completion of probation period and whether the concerned workman should be granted benefits at par with regular and permanent employees. 19. Learned tribunal adjudicated the said reference cases and passed award date 15.2.2014 which are challenged in this group of petitions. 20. It is in view of abovementioned facts that during hearing of these petitions it has emerged that the petitions can be disposed of on limited ground without entering into merits of the demand of the workman viz. the benefit which is granted by the learned Tribunal should have been granted from the date of appointment and/or without entering into merits of Nagar Palika's grievance against the award viz. the direction passed by the learned Tribunal are unjust and arbitrary and having regard to the defects in the appointments such direction could not have been passed. 21. With reference to above mentioned aspect, it is relevant to mention that above mentioned chronology of facts and events have brought out a vital aspect viz. that the selection process pursuant to which the concerned persons were appointed was infected by irregularities and defects and that therefore, the Collector had directed Nagar Palika to restore status quo ante and therefore Nagar Palika had passed orders dated 8.9.1995 and cancelled the appointments and had terminated services of the concerned workmen. 21.1 Consequently the appointment/service of the concerned workman came to be terminated within 10/12 days after their appointments and even before the date when appropriate government passed the orders of Reference i.e. on 20.4.1998 the appointments of concerned workmen were cancelled and their services stood terminated and that they were not in the service of Nagar Palika on the date when orders of Reference were passed. 21.2 Another important aspect is that writ petition against said order terminating the appointment/service of the concerned persons which was filed by the concerned workmen has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.4.1996. Third important aspect is that the concerned workmen raised, subject demand, which is reflected in the 4 orders of reference, in 1998 i.e. about 3 years after the termination orders dated 8.9.1995 was passed by the Division Bench. 22. Third important aspect is that the concerned workmen raised, subject demand, which is reflected in the 4 orders of reference, in 1998 i.e. about 3 years after the termination orders dated 8.9.1995 was passed by the Division Bench. 22. In this background, first issue which the learned Tribunal was required to consider was that when the appointments/services of the claimants were terminated vide order dated 8.9.1995 and the petition against said order was also rejected, how can demand for permanency in service can be considered when the appointments and services of concerned workmen were terminated since 8.9.1995. When the Nagar Palika had also terminated service of the concerned workmen vide order dated 8.9.1995, then the question of regularization and/or status of permanency in service would arise only after competent Court sets aside termination. 23. In present case undisputedly, the termination of the services of concerned workmen is not set aside by the competent Court. Actually the concerned workmen do not appear to have raised any dispute against the order of termination. Without considering the issue as to whether the termination orders have been set aside, the learned Tribunal proceeded to entertain reference i.e. the claim for regularization and permanency and adjudicated reference and passed impugned direction without having regard to the fact that neither order of reference can be passed nor claim for regularization can be entertained and adjudicated in respect of the persons whose services are terminated and the termination orders are not set aside by the competent Court. Actually, in view of the fact that the services of the workmen were terminated before the order of Reference was passed, the order of Reference itself was defective and unsustainable inasmuch as in respect of persons whose appointments and services were terminated any demand or any question for regularization and permanency would not arise. Such claim could not have been referred and/or adjudicated. 24. So far as impugned award and directions are concerned it is also noticed that the learned Tribunal decided the reference only on the basis of evidence/deposition by one of the concerned 15 claimants. On this count it is necessary and relevant to recall that the Nagar Palika had initiated the selection and recruitment process for clearing backlog of appointment for the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. On this count it is necessary and relevant to recall that the Nagar Palika had initiated the selection and recruitment process for clearing backlog of appointment for the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. In that view of the matter, even otherwise the learned Tribunal was obliged to comply to consider as to whether each of the claimants in the reference cases who demanded regularization and permanency in the service belonged to Schedule Tribe or not. The said factual aspect could not have been generalized and could not have been decided merely in light of one person's evidence. 25. In light of the basis of the evidence of one person learned Tribunal assumed that all persons belonged to Schedule Tribe category and proceeded to pass impugned award. 26. From the award it has also emerged that the learned Tribunal did not consider and did not deal with the direction issued by the Collector and the learned tribunal also did not consider vital aspect viz. defect and irregularities in the process of selection which emerged from the resolution passed by the general body on 11.9.1995. The impugned award is passed without considering the above mentioned aspects and more particularly without considering the issue about the propriety and maintainability of the demand for regularization and status of permanent workman (i.e. permanency) when the termination orders are not are not set aside by the competent court or have not been withdrawn and cancelled by the Nagar Palika itself. 27. The award is passed without considering this aspect, hence it cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside on the said limited ground. The cases deserve reconsideration in light of above discussed aspects. The learned Tribunal should address the issue related to legality and propriety of orders of Reference whereby claim for permanency in service is referred in respect of the persons whose appointments and services are terminated. Therefore following order is passed:- The impugned award is set aside. The reference cases are remanded to learned Tribunal for fresh hearing and fresh order. In the process the learned Tribunal shall decide, as preliminary issue, the legality and propriety of the orders of reference and shall also decide as to whether the orders of reference are justified and maintainable in light of the fact that the service of the workmen have been terminated vide order dated 8.9.1995. In the process the learned Tribunal shall decide, as preliminary issue, the legality and propriety of the orders of reference and shall also decide as to whether the orders of reference are justified and maintainable in light of the fact that the service of the workmen have been terminated vide order dated 8.9.1995. Only after considering the said aspect and recording its finding, the learned Tribunal will, depending on its decision on the said preliminary issue, adjudicate the reference further if the Tribunal finds that such further adjudication is necessary even after decision with regard to said preliminary issue. In that event, learned Tribunal will allow the parties to lead necessary and appropriate evidence. Learned Tribunal will pass appropriate order in accordance with law and in light of the material which may be available on record however without being influenced by its previous order or present order inasmuch as this discussion in present order is made only with a view to taking note of the defect in the proceedings of reference cases noticed from the material on record. It will be open to the concerned workmen to approach learned tribunal with certified copy of present order and request learned Tribunal to initiate fresh proceedings immediately and without any delay and it would also be open to the concerned workmen to submit appropriate application as may be required and request the learned Tribunal to pass appropriate orders including ad-interim/interim order/interim protection as may be required in the facts of the case. With the aforesaid clarifications the petitions are disposed of. Rule is made absolute. Orders accordingly.