JUDGMENT : (M.K. Thakker, J.) 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned labour court, Bhavnagar in reference LCB No.104 of 2014 whereby, the reference filed by the respondent herein, seeking reinstatement to his original post came to be rejected. 2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner was working under the control and supervision of the respondent No.1 and he was paid monthly salary through the respondent No.2. He was discharging the duty of maintenance and fault repair for the respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat and Vallabhipur Taluka. He was treated as a helper Class-IV employee since the date of appointment I.e 1980 till 24.05.2013 i.e. the date of termination. The wages were paid under the nomenclature of Vijadi Gar i.e. helper on discharging the duties before the respondent No.2. As per the claim of the petitioner he was discharging his duty under the instructions issued by Officer of respondent No.1 and was working under the supervision and control of respondent No.1. 3. It is alleged that without following due procedure under the act, his services were terminated with effect from 24.05.2013 and though the respondent No.1 is Principle employer of the petitioner, learned labour court, while dismissing the reference has held that there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is further held by the learned labour court in the impugned award that as it is contended by the present petitioner that there is no relationship of employee and employer between the present petitioner and respondent No.2, therefore in absence of establishing of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, the claim of the petitioner is required to be refused. In addition to the above, learned labour court has further held that as the petitioner was found to have been involved in the theft of electricity and he has given confession and paid the penalty with regard to the same, his services were immediately terminated with effect from 24.05.2013 and therefore, reference which was filed for reinstatement was awarded against the present petitioner which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Reena Kamani and learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar on advance copy. 5. 4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Reena Kamani and learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar on advance copy. 5. Learned advocate Ms.Kamani submits that petitioner was appointed as a class-IV post from the year 1980 under the supervision and control of respondent No.1 and has been issued a gate pass and was allotted the material by the respondent No.1 which was produced below Exh.21 to 105. However, learned labour court though it was admitted by the respondent No.1 that the gate passes were issued by the respondent No.1, comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is not an employee of respondent No.1. Learned advocate Ms.Kamani submits that if he was only an employee to respondent No.1, then as per the admission made by the present petitioner he worked in the surrounding village of Mud Dharai Gram Panchayat which is beyond the territory of Gram Panchayat and therefore, also learned labour court has committed error in holding that there is no employee-employer relationship between the present petitioner and respondent No.1. 5.1. Learned advocate Ms.Kamani submits that undue weightage was given to the confession which was made by the present petitioner without having proved the charge against the same and in that background also impugned order deserves to be set aside. Learned advocate Ms.Kamani relies on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs. Alath Factory Thozhilali Union, Kozhikode And Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1410 and submitted that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, the employer and employee relation is to be examined. In view of the fact that the workman worked under the supervision and control of employer, here in the instant case undisputedly the present petitioner has worked under the supervision and control of the respondent No.1, therefore, also learned labour court has committed error in dismissing the reference. 5.2. In view of the above, it is submitted by the learned advocate that the petition filed by the present petitioner is required to be allowed by directing to reinstate the respondent No.1 and to pay all the consequential benefits. 6. 5.2. In view of the above, it is submitted by the learned advocate that the petition filed by the present petitioner is required to be allowed by directing to reinstate the respondent No.1 and to pay all the consequential benefits. 6. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar on advance copy on behalf of the respondent No.1 submitted that there was mutual understanding between the Gram Panchayat and the respondent No.1 with regard to the fault of electricity in remote areas, and thereby, appointment was routed through the respondent No.1 in Gram Panchayat for dissolving the fault which may be caused in the electricity connections. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar submits that all the employees who are nomenclature under the Vijadi Gar has been appointed by the Gram Panchayat and worked under the muster roll of the Gram Panchayat therefore, learned labour court has rightly held that the petitioner is not the employee of respondent No.1. Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar submits that it is admitted by the petitioner that the salary was paid through cheque, however, no evidence was led before the learned labour court to substantiate that fact. Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar submits that that prior issuance of the gate pass would not be considered as the conclusive evidence to show that petitioner was an employee of respondent No.1. Gate passes, as per the submission of the learned advocate can be issued to the persons who are coming for collecting materials from respondent No.1. 6.2. Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar submits that learned labour court has relied on the circular issued by the respondent No.1 which was produced below Exh.14 wherein, it was instructed to the Gram Panchayat if any Vijadi Gar is found to have been involved in the commitment of the offence of theft of electricity, then his services should be immediately terminated. Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar submits that from the residence of the present petitioner the theft of electricity was found to have been taken place and the present petitioner has given his confession letter (Mafipatra) and paid the amount of penalty, therefore, the learned labour court after considering the evidence in detail has rightly held that there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar submits that as there was no claim of employee-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and therefore, learned labour court has rightly concluded the reference against the present petitioner and no interference is required and the petition is required to be dismissed. 7. Considering the submission made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it transpires from the record that as per the statement of claim, it was claimed by the present petitioner that the petitioner was serving as a helper with the respondent No.1 and in support of the aforesaid contention gate pass below Exh.86, 87, 89 to 93 & 97 to 101 was produced wherein, the post of the present petitioner has been shown as a “Helper”. It is further claimed in the statement of claim that his services were terminated without following the due procedure by the respondent No.1, therefore dispute was raised with prayer to grant the relief of reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits. 8. Considering the evidence and the reasons assigned by the learned advocate, it transpires from the record that as per the claim of the present petitioner, he was serving as a helper, however, as per the oral evidence recorded below Exh.107, it is claimed that he was appointed as a Vijadi Gar. As per the written statement filed by respondent No.2 below Exh.9 also it is undisputed fact that he was appointed as a Vijadi Gar. Relying on the gate passes it was claimed that he was working as a helper, however subsequently during rhe cross-examination it was admitted that he was not serving as a helper, but was appointed as a Vijadi Gar, therefore, learned labour court has rightly held that petitioner was not appointed as a helper, but was appointed on the post of Vijadi Gar. It was also admitted by the present petitioner who was examined below Exh.107 that his appointment was made on 21.07.1980 by Mud Dharai Gram Panchayat as a Vijadi Gar. It is further admitted that salary was paid by the Mud Dharai Gram Panchayat every month. It is admitted that it was paid through the Mud Dharai Gram Panchayat by PGVCL. 9. It is further admitted that salary was paid by the Mud Dharai Gram Panchayat every month. It is admitted that it was paid through the Mud Dharai Gram Panchayat by PGVCL. 9. Learned labour court has relied on the circular below Exh.14 which was produced by learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar wherein, it is held that the appointment of Vijadi Gar is made by the Gram Panchayat and therefore they would not be employee of the respondent No.1. This Court in an identical situation in the case of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited and another Vs. Jagdishsinh Kuvarsinh Wala and others in Special Civil Application No.1217 of 2016 by the Coordinate Bench, has considered the point that whether there was employer employee relationship between the Electricity Company and the workman, where the workman was working in the Gram Panchayat concerned and ultimately by following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.777 of 1996 as well as the decisions rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.10737 of 1998 dated 25.07.2007 and Special Civil Application No.5644 of 1997 dated 31.07.2007, had come to the conclusion that there was no employer employee relationship between the Electricity Company and the respondents thereof. 10. In addition to that no documentary evidence was led before the learned labour court in support of the contention that petitioner was an employee of respondent No.1 and there was a relationship of master and servant between the present petitioner and respondent No.1. During the evidence of respondent No.2, it is admitted that the present petitioner’s presence was recorded in the muster roll of respondent No.2 and payment was also made by the respondent No.2. Therefore, learned labour court in the opinion of this Court has rightly held that there is no employeeemployer relationship between the present petitioner and respondent No.1 and as per the admission of the present petitioner he is not an employee of the respondent No.2. In view of that, learned labour court has refused to entertain the reference of present petitioner. In addition to that, reliance was also placed on Ex.16 i.e. Mafipatra written by the present petitioner admitting the guilt of theft of electricity and paying the amount of penalty. In view of that, learned labour court has refused to entertain the reference of present petitioner. In addition to that, reliance was also placed on Ex.16 i.e. Mafipatra written by the present petitioner admitting the guilt of theft of electricity and paying the amount of penalty. The signature on the Mafipatra was not disputed by the present petitioner and in view of that, learned labour court has held that as per the circular produced below Exh.14 the service cannot be continued of the persons who are involved in commitment of theft of electricity. 11. Learned labour court after assigning detailed reasons has held that the petitioner is not entitled for relief which was claimed and in view thereof, reference came to be rejected. Reliance of the judgment which was made by the learned advocate wherein, the dispute with regard to the employee-employer relationship between the petitioner Principle employer and contract employees and contractor. In that background it was held that the person who worked under the supervision and control of the employee would be considered as a Principle employer. Here, in the instant case in absence of any evidence led by the learned court, judgment would not help the present petitioner and therefore this petition is required to be dismissed. 12. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.