JUDGMENT
Sharad D. Dave, J.
1. By way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd.7/12/1999 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No. 1 denying to make Industrial Reference on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman. The petitioner raised a industrial; dispute over illegal termination of his services with the respondent NO. 2 Bank. The Conciliation Officer conciliated the dispute and submitted failure of the Conciliation Report to the respondent No. 1 – Union of India for reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that the respondent No. 1 has gone into the merits of the dispute and has decided and adjudicated the dispute holding that the projected dispute is not covered under the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947 defining “workman”. He has further argued that the Government has no authority to go into the merits of the matter and adjudicate the dispute. It is for the Industrial Tribunal to decide the dispute and not the respondent No. 1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors., delivered in Civil Appeal No. 2534 of 1989, decided on April 28, 1989. In the said decision the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under;-
“13. Attractive though the contention is, we regret, we are unable to accept the same. It is now settled law, while exercising powers under section 10(1) of the Act, the function of the appropriate government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi judicial function and that in performing this administrative function, the government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the list, which would certainly be en excess of the power conferred on it by Sec.10 of the Act. (See Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of Haryana 1985 (3) SCC 189, M.P. Irrigation Karmachari Sangh v. State of M.P., 1985 II CLR 10, Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, Jullundur, 1978 (2) SCC 353).”
4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government, Mr. Sameer Dave for the respondent No. 1 Union and Mr. P.G. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent NO. 2 Bank have argued that different view has been taken by the Court on the controversy involved in this petition and hence appropriate order may be passed.
5. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there can be no doubt that the Government was not justified in deciding the dispute. Whereas, in the instant case, the dispute is whether the person raising the dispute is workman or not, the same can be not be decided by the Government in exercise of its administrative function under Section 10(1) of the Act.
6. I am, therefore, of the view that the State Government, which is the appropriate government, was not justified in adjudicating the dispute and accordingly the impugned order cannot sustain.
7. In the circumstances, I direct the State government to make a reference under Sec.10(1) of the Act of the dispute raised by the petitioner to an appropriate Industrial Tribunal within a period of THREE MONTHS from the date of receipt of writ of this order.
8. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dtd.7/12/1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-C to the petition) is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to cots.