JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.04.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11598 of 2015, by which, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant herein-original workman and has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Palanpur dated 04.03.2015 passed in Reference (LCP) No. 8 of 2007, by which, the learned Labour Court rejected the said Reference, the original petitioner-workman has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1 That the appellant herein-original petitioner claimed to have been appointed as Bore Operator. According to the original petitioner, he was appointed pursuant to the interview held on 17.05.1998 and was appointed by order dated 18.05.1998, having been selected in the said interview. It appears that according to the Municipality, the appointment order of the petitioner was not to be found in the official records and that there was no resolution passed by the Administrator appointing the petitioner on the said post, it was also found that the petitioner was never appointed by the Deesa Nagarpalika. Therefore, a show-cause notice dated 31.03.2005, came to be issued against the petitioner. In the show-cause notice, it was stated inter-alia, that the petitioner has never been appointed on the post of Bore Operator. From the record of the Nagarpalika, it was revealed that no resolution has been passed appointing the petitioner on the said post nor any procedure has been undertaken for his appointment. In the show-cause notice, it was also stated that the service book of the petitioner was not prepared nor has he produced the medical fitness certificate. Therefore, it was stated that the petitioner has committed a fraud and has secured the appointment through fraudulent means. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to show-cause why he should not be dismissed from service and why salary paid to him should not be recovered. It appears that petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice by his letter dated 2.4.2005. He stated that he appeared for the interview on 17.05.1998 and was asked to report for duty after verifying his original documents. It appears that petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice by his letter dated 2.4.2005. He stated that he appeared for the interview on 17.05.1998 and was asked to report for duty after verifying his original documents. He stated that he is discharging his duty since more than six years and receives regular salary and increments. He stated that he was never asked to supply medical fitness certificate. He denied that he has secured employment through fraud. At this stage, it is required to be noted that petitioner challenged the show- cause notice dated 31.03.2005 before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005. During the course of hearing of the aforesaid petition, in which, show-cause notice was challenged, the Nagarpalika produced on record the order dated 12.04.2005, by which, the petitioner came to be removed from service. The elaborate submissions were made by the learned advocate for the respective parties on the order of removal dated 12.04.2005 at the time of hearing of the Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the final judgment and order dated 26.04.2005, the learned Single Judge specifically noted that though there was no prayer challenging the order dated 12.04.2005, he has permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to address the Court at length on the legality of such an order also. That thereafter, learned advocates for the respective parties made elaborate submissions on the legality and validity of the order of removal dated 12.04.2005, it is evident from the final judgment and order dated 26.04.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005. In the order dated 12.04.2005, it was recorded that the petitioner was never selected in the interview held on 17.05.1998. It was also stated that the petitioner was called upon to produce material in support of his selection which he failed to do. It was also found that the petitioner has secured appointment through fraud and therefore, order to be dismissed from service. With respect to the salary already paid, separate proceedings were ordered to be initiated. It was also stated that the petitioner was called upon to produce material in support of his selection which he failed to do. It was also found that the petitioner has secured appointment through fraud and therefore, order to be dismissed from service. With respect to the salary already paid, separate proceedings were ordered to be initiated. That thereafter, after giving fullest opportunity to the learned advocates for the respective parties on the legality and validity of the order of removal dated 12.04.2005, by detailed judgment and order dated 26.04.2005, the learned Single Judge rejected the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 and as such confirmed the order of removal dated 12.04.2005. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such Special Civil Application came to be dismissed on 26.04.2005. That despite the fact that the learned Single Judge dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 and did not interfere with the order of removal dated 12.04.2005, approximately after a period of one year and more i.e. in the year 2006, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute challenging the order of removal dated 12.04.2005. The said dispute was referred to the learned Labour Court, Palanpur in the year 2007, which was numbered as Reference (LCP) No. 08 of 2007. That the learned Labour Court, Palanpur dismissed/rejected the said Reference by specifically observing that once the High Court in the petition being Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 did not interfere with the order of removal dated 12.04.2005 thereafter it would not be open for the Labour Court to consider the legality and validity of the order of removal dated 12.04.2005 again. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Palanpur dated 04.03.2015 passed in Reference (LCP) No. 08 of 2007, the appellant herein preferred Special Civil Application before the learned Single Judge being Special Civil Application No. 11598 of 2015. By impugned judgment and order and more particularly, considering the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006. By impugned judgment and order and more particularly, considering the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006. By impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has also dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Application, which has given rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 3. Shri Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate has appeared for Shri Paresh Patel, learned advocate for the appellant-original petitioner. 3.1 Shri Chauhan, learned advocate for the appellant-original petitioner has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has materially erred in dismissing the petition and confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court dismissing the Reference. 3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Chauhan, learned advocate for the original petitioner that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 what was challenged was the show-cause notice and the order dated 12.04.2005 was not challenged, which was challenged before the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute. It is submitted that therefore, Labour Court materially erred in dismissing the Reference without entering into the merits of the order of termination/removal dated 12.04.2005. It is further submitted that as such at the time of hearing of Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005, appellant herein-original petitioner could not produce the relevant material to show that in fact he was appointed after interview and after following due procedure and the relevant materials came to be produced by the appellant-original petitioner before the Labour Court which as such were not available with the appellant herein-original petitioner. 3.3 Shri Chauhan, learned advocate for the original petitioner has tried to make submission on the legality and validity of the order of removal dated 12.04.2005 and by relying upon the some documents, however, in view of the order passed by the learned Singled Judge dated 26.04.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 and for the reasons stated herein below, we do not propose to consider the submission on the legality and validity of the order of removal dated 12.04.2005. 4. 4. Heard Shri Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate for the appellant at length. 4.1 At the out set, it is required to be noted that in the earlier round of litigation before this Court, the appellant herein-original petitioner lost and the learned Single Judge of this Court by its judgment and order dated 26.04.2005 dismissed the Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 and did not interfere with the order of removal dated 12.04.2005. At this stage, it is required to be noted that though the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 was against the show-cause notice dated 31.03.2005 calling upon the petitioner as to why legal action should not be taken against him, at the time of hearing of the aforesaid Special Civil Application, the original respondent nos. 2 and 3-Nagarpalika and Another produced on record an order dated 12.04.2005, by which, the appellant herein- original petitioner was removed from service. 4.2 Therefore, learned Single Judge permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to address the Court at length on the legality of such order also and thereafter, learned counsel for the respective parties made elaborate submission and addressed the Court at length on the legality of the order of removal dated 12.04.2005 and thereafter, the learned Single Judge dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 and did not interfere with the order of removal dated 12.04.2005. While dismissing the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005, in para 1 itself, the learned Single Judge observed as under: “The present petition was filed challenging the show-cause notice dated 31st March, 2005, calling upon the petitioner as to why legal action should not be taken against him. Respondents No. 2 and 3 appearing on caveat had produced on record, an order dated 12th April, 2005, by which the petitioner is removed from service. Though there was no prayer challenging the said order dated 12th April, 2005. I have permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to address the Court at length on the legality of such an order also.” 4.3 From the entire order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005, it appears that elaborate submissions at length were made by the learned counsel for the respective parties on the legality of the order dated 12.04.2005. Therefore, as such thereafter it was not open for the appellant herein- original petitioner to again challenge the order dated 12.04.2005, which was not interfered with by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by raising an industrial dispute subsequently. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005, the appellant herein-original petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006 before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.08.2006 dismissed the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006 whereby, following order came to be passed. “These two Appeals preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise from the orders dated 26th April, 2005 and dated 3rd August, 2006 made by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Applications. Pursuant to the order made earlier, learned advocate Mr. Rathod has produced the original record in connection with the subject matter of these Appeals for perusal by this Court. The appellants-writ petitioners claim that by order dated 18th May, 1998 they were appointed by the respondent Deesa Municipality (hereinafter referred to as, the Municipality) as Bore Operator (Pump Operator) in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500. Pursuant to the said orders of appointment they were issued posting orders. Over the years, they were transferred from one posting to another. Their pay bills were also assessed and they were paid salary regularly. However, on 31st March, 2005 the Municipality issued notice upon the appellants informing them that they were not appointed by the Municipality; and that they had forged the appointment orders and had secured posting on the basis of such forged appointment orders. They were called upon to show-cause why they should not be dismissed from service. The said notice were duly replied by the appellants. According to the appellants, pursuant to the advertisement published on 7th May, 1998, they had applied for appointment as Bore Operator and had appeared before the Interview Committee on 17th May, 1998. Pursuant to their selection in the said interview, they were given appointment order on 18th May, 1998. They had since been working as Bore Operator regularly. The said reply was not accepted by the Municipality. By order dated 12th April, 2005 the appellants were dismissed from service with immediate effect. Pursuant to their selection in the said interview, they were given appointment order on 18th May, 1998. They had since been working as Bore Operator regularly. The said reply was not accepted by the Municipality. By order dated 12th April, 2005 the appellants were dismissed from service with immediate effect. Feeling aggrieved, they preferred the above Special Civil Applications before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitions were contested by the respondent Municipality. It was admitted that the Municipality had issued public notice to invite applications for appointment as Bore Operators; that the interview for the posts of Bore Operator was held on 17th May, 1998. It was, however, submitted that to fill-in the nine vacancies the Municipality had appointed seven Bore Operators by direct selection and two posts were filled-in by appointment of the existing employees. The orders of appointment were issued on 18th May, 1998 under the signature of the then Chief Officer. No order for appointment was issued in favour of the appellants. Their posting done at the field office was never notified in the establishment branch of the Municipality. The Accountant had drawn the pay bills of the appellants. Accordingly, the payment of salary was made. The establishment branch of the Municipality had no information about the said appointments, posting or payment of salary. The Municipality had never sent the appellants for medical examination which is a mandatory requirement. Nor had the Municipality prepared their service books. The aforesaid fraud was disclosed by an anonymous complaint received by the Municipality. The Municipality had promptly acted and discharged the appellants from service for their entry in the service was unauthorised. We have perused the original record. We are satisfied that no appointment order was ever issued in favour of the appellants herein. The signature of the Chief Officer on the appointment order received by the appellants is quite different from the signature of the Chief Officer found on the other appointment orders issued by the Municipality. We are, therefore, satisfied that the appellant's entry in service was based on forged appointment order. The appellants had been given a notice to show-cause and had been given adequate opportunity to establish that their appointment was indeed made by the Municipality. The appellants having failed to establish that the appointment order received by them were genuine, they have rightly been discharged from service. The appellants had been given a notice to show-cause and had been given adequate opportunity to establish that their appointment was indeed made by the Municipality. The appellants having failed to establish that the appointment order received by them were genuine, they have rightly been discharged from service. No case for interference is made out. The Appeals are dismissed in limine. Civil Applications stand disposed of.” 4.4 It appears that only thereafter and after dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006, the appellant herein original petitioner raised an industrial dispute challenging the order of termination/removal dated 12.04.2005. The Labour Court has rightly declined to interfere with the order of termination dated 12.04.2005 and has rightly refused to consider the legality and validity of the order dated 12.04.2005 in view of the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006. The learned Single Judge has also rightly confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court. 5. The submission on behalf of the appellant that as in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 what was challenged by the show-cause notice and not order of removal dated 12.04.2005 was not under challenge specifically and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have considered the legality and validity of the order of removal dated 12.04.2005 on merits. The aforesaid is to be rejected outright. As observed herein above and even as observed by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 26.04.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005, which came to be confirmed by the learned Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006, the learned Single Judge permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to address the Court at length on the legality of the order dated 12.04.2005 and thereafter as such, the learned counsel for the petitioner made elaborate submission on merits on the legality of the order dated 12.04.2005. Even the Division Bench also while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006, after considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the legality of the order of removal dated 12.04.2005. Even the Division Bench also while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006, after considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the legality of the order of removal dated 12.04.2005. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, even on the principle of res-judicata/constructive res-judicata, it was not open for the appellant herein-original petitioner to again challenged the order dated 12.04.2005 by raising industrial dispute before the Labour Court. After making elaborate submission before learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 as well as before the learned Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006 on the legality of order of removal/termination dated 12.04.2005, it not proper on the part of the appellant to contend that as before this Court in Special Civil Application order of removal was not under challenge, the Labour Court was required to consider the legality of the order dated 12.04.2005 on merits. 5.1 Similarly and once the order passed by learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 and the order passed by the Division Bench passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006 has attained the finality and even findings recorded by the learned Single Judge as well as learned Division Bench while dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 7082 of 2005 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006 have attained the finality, thereafter it is not open for the appellant herein-original petitioner to contend that he has having sufficient material to show that he was appointed after following interview and the recruitment process. At this stage, it is required to be noted that while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No. 902 of 2006 after perusing the original record, the Division Bench has specifically observed that “we are satisfied that no appointment order was ever issued in favour of the appellants herein. The signature of the Chief Officer on the appointment order received by the appellants is quite different from the signature of the Chief Officer found on the other appointment orders issued by the Municipality. We are, therefore, satisfied that the appellant's entry in service was based on forged appointment order. The appellants had been given a notice to show-cause and had been given adequate opportunity to establish that their appointment was indeed made by the Municipality. We are, therefore, satisfied that the appellant's entry in service was based on forged appointment order. The appellants had been given a notice to show-cause and had been given adequate opportunity to establish that their appointment was indeed made by the Municipality. The appellants having failed to establish that the appointment order received by them were genuine, they have rightly been discharged from service. No case for interference is made out. The Appeals are dismissed in limine.” As observed herein above, the aforesaid finding has attained the finality. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the Labour Court dismissed the Reference and thereafter when the same has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error which calls for the interference of this Court in exercise of intra Court appellate jurisdiction. As such we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Labour Court as well as learned Single Judge. No interference of this Court is called for. 6.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present Appeal and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with cost which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the appellant with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today. 7. In view of dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application stands dismissed.