1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.831 of 2009 B.S.Kangi ..Petitioner vs. M/s Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. ..Respondent Mr.N.M.Ganguli for petitioner Mr.Ashish Kamath i/b Mr.A.S.Singh for respondent CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 24th August, 2009 P.C. 1 By this petition the petitioner is challenging the Award dated 20th October, 2008 passed by the 5th Labour Court dismissing the Reference. The 5th Labour Court whilst dismissing the reference has categorically held that the petitioner workman was selected in S.T. category by submitting a false community status and that it is clear that the petitioner has deliberately supplied false information as 2 regards his community status in the application form for employment. This act on the part of the petitioner has deprived one bonafide candidate of S.T.category from employment. 2 Mr.Ganguli, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has made a feeble attempt to argue before this Court that the petitioner was not employed in S.T.category and, therefore, the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee setting aside the caste certificate issued to the petitioner would be of no consequence. The compilation of documents produced by respondent no.1 Company starting from the requirement that they had sent to the Employment Exchange setting out the number of posts that were vacant with them qua the S.T./S.C. category, the information provided by the Employment Exchange to respondent no.1 company, the necessary forms filled in by the 3 petitioner with the respondent no.1 company showing himself as S.T. candidate, the minutes of the interview recording that the petitioner whose interview has been taken by the interviewing committee is a S.T.candidate, all goes to show beyond any doubt that the employee has obtained his employment with the respondent no.1 company on the basis of the petitioner being an S.T.candidate. The statement made by the petitioner himself in paragraph 6 of the petition, viz The petitioner states that it appears that the Scheduled Castes Association made some complaint in respect of some of the employees who got employment on the basis of the caste certificates produced by them. The petitioner states that the respondents, therefore appear to have required the caste certificates of the employees for scrutiny and verification before the Caste Scrutiny Committee.... 4 itself belies the contention that he had not secured his employment with respondent no.1 under the S.T.category. If the petitioner was not appointed in the ST category as now alleged the petitioner would not have approached the Caste Scrutiny Committee for a certificate but would have submitted to his employers that the complaint is not applicable to him because he was not employed under the ST category. Having faced with these facts, Mr.Ganguli, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has sought to rely on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 LAB IC 1691, more particularly paragraphs 13 to 16 wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court without going into the merits of the case, directed the respondents therein not to dislodge the appellant from the post of the primary school teacher. The facts in the present case apart from being distinquishable, the Hon ble Supreme Court in 5 paragraph 16 of its decision has categorically stated that This order of ours shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case . 4 In view of the aforesaid and in view of the very clear and cogent reasons given by the 5th Labour Court in its award dated 20th October, 2008 rejecting the reference and the petitioner being unable to make out any case necessitating interference under Article 226, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)