Reference under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be refused on merits; disputed termination issues must go to adjudication.

While considering a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government performs only an administrative function and cannot decide disputed questions on merits, such as the workman's status or the legality of termination. The refusal to refer was based on a merits assessment of the claim, including alleged short service and absence of documentary proof, even though the dispute also raised issues under Sections 25G and 25H requiring adjudication by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. The refusal to make reference was therefore unsustainable, and the order was quashed with the matter remitted for reference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appropriate Government could refuse reference of the industrial dispute by examining the merits of the claim and whether the impugned order declining reference was sustainable.

Analysis: The petitioner's dispute was raised under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the refusal to refer turned on the conclusion that he had worked only for 85 days and had not produced documentary proof of further engagement. The governing principle is that, while considering reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government may form only an administrative opinion on whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and cannot adjudicate the dispute on merits or determine contested questions such as the status of the workman or the legality of termination. The objection relating to non-completion of 240 days and the alleged inapplicability of Section 25F did not govern the present controversy, since the petitioner's grievance also involved Section 25G and Section 25H issues that required adjudication by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after reference.

Conclusion: The refusal to make reference was unsustainable and the impugned order was quashed, with the matter remitted to the appropriate Government for making reference of the dispute.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the appropriate Government had exceeded its limited role by deciding the industrial dispute on merits instead of leaving it for adjudication after reference.

Ratio Decidendi: While considering a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government performs an administrative function and cannot decide disputed issues on merits, which must be left to the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after reference.

---