Reference under industrial dispute law must rest on relevant considerations; punitive refusal based on misconduct is extraneous.

Under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the appropriate Government may refuse a reference only on bona fide and relevant considerations after examining the conciliation officer's failure report and other germane material. A refusal based solely on workmen's go-slow conduct, without nexus to the merits of the industrial dispute, is punitive and extraneous, especially where that misconduct has already attracted disciplinary action. The dispute's claims for bonus and classification still disclosed a prima facie case for adjudication, so misconduct could not be used to substitute for statutory reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government could refuse to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication on the ground that the workmen had resorted to go-slow tactics, and whether such refusal was based on relevant considerations.

Analysis: Section 12(5) requires the Government to consider the conciliation officer's failure report and other relevant material and to decide whether a case for reference exists. The power to make a reference operates in the statutory scheme through section 10(1), while section 12(5) controls the manner of exercise after conciliation has failed. The Government must act bona fide and on relevant and germane considerations. A refusal grounded solely on workmen's misconduct, without any nexus to the merits of the dispute for bonus and classification, was held to be punitive and extraneous. The misconduct already attracted disciplinary action and could not be used as a substitute for adjudication of claims that otherwise disclosed a prima facie case for reference.

Conclusion: The refusal to refer the dispute was not justified in law; the reasons recorded were extraneous and not germane, and the writ of mandamus was rightly issued.

---