Judgment HARI LAL AGRAWAL and S.K.CHOUDHURI JJ. 1. The petitioner, the Secretary of the Barauni Oil Refinery Labour Union (Barauni Tel Shodhak Mazdoor Union) has applied under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying that the order dated the 11th August 1972 passed by the State Government (Annexure 1 to the writ application) refusing to refer the alleged industrial disputes be quashed by a writ on the ground that the same was invalid. 2. The only ground made by the petitioner in challange of the impugned order is that the order is not in accordance with sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , as the reasons for refusing to refer the disputes are not stated in the same. 3. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Labour Union had raised a number of disputes with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Barauni Oil Refinery Management (Respondent No. 3) and mutual negotiations having failed to settle up the disputes, the matter was taken by the Labour and Conciliation Officer of the Government of Bihar. But he failed to conciliate and the proceeding ended in a failure. The Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report to the State Government. The matter was then taken up by the Commissioner of Labour, who submitted his report dated 15-6-1972 to the State Government, a copy of which has been made Annexure A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On receipt of these reports, the Government decided to refer only some of the items of the disputes to the Industrial Tribunal. Patna, by a notification dated 28-6-1972, and 14 items of disputes having been considered not fit for reference, were not referred and the parties were informed accordingly, as required under Section 12 (5) of the Act by the impugned notification dated 11-8-1972 (Annexure 1). 4. Section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act, which is divided into six sub-sections, mainly deals with the duties of Conciliation Officer, except sub-section (5), which deals with the discretionary power of the appropriate Government to make or refuse to make an order of reference, at the same time casting a duty on the Government to record and communicate to the parties its reasons in case it refuses to make a reference. The impugned order made under Section 12 (5) of the Act states only this much that the State Government, after considering the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer and keeping in view the connected facts and circumstances, did not consider that the fourteen items of disputes enumerated in the said order were fit for being referred for adjudication (the impugned order being in Hindi, its English translation has been made by the court). 5. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, however, gives detailed reasons for refusing to make reference of each of the fourteen items of disputes. The question, however, which falls for consideration is as to whether the facts disclosed in the impugned order that the Government, on consideration of the report of the Conciliation Officer and the facts and circumstances connected with the case, did not consider fit to make a reference of the disputes for adjudication was the required disclosure of the reasons for the refusal, if at all, or as a matter of fact it simply stated a fact regarding the consideration of the relevant materials for coming to the decision. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the disclosure of facts made in the impugned order cannot be held to be the disclosure of any reason at all, learned Government pleader No. IV argued that the disclosure of the facts made in the impugned order was a complete disclosure of the mental process of the State Government through which the decision to refuse to make the reference was reached and it amounted to a sufficient compliance of the requirement of Section 12 (5) and it was not open to this court to examine the correctness of the decision as all the relevant materials germane to the issue were duly considered. Pursuing this contention, learned Government pleader further contended that, in any event, the relevant materials having been duly considered and no case having been made out by the petitioner that some relevant materials remained still unconsidered, the issuance of any writ would be entirely futile and no interference should be made by this court. 6. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, the relevant provision has to be examined in some greater details. 6. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, the relevant provision has to be examined in some greater details. The object of the Act is not only to make provision for investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, but also to secure industrial peace so that it may result in more production and improve national economy. Co-operation between capital and labour is essential for maintenance of increased production and industrial peace. Section 12 (5) of the Act provides that if. on a consideration of the report of the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference......, it may make such reference. The first part of sub-section (5) does not require much consideration in this case as the power to refer the dispute under Section 10 to the Tribunal rests with the appropriate Government, and for that purpose it may give reasons or may not do so. The only condition precedent to the making of the order of reference is the satisfaction of the appropriate Government. It is the second part of sub-section (5) dealing with the contingency of the refusal to make a reference with which we are concerned in this case. This provision contemplates that if the appropriate Government does not make such a reference, it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor. The consideration of the report of the Conciliation Officer, therefore, is a necessary condition for taking its final decision by the State Government, that is, either to make a reference or not to make a reference. 7. The statement in the impugned order to the effect that the Government had considered the report of the Conciliation Officer as well as the surrounding facts and circumstances, does not per se appear to me to be the compliance of the mandatory requirement of recording the relevant reasons for refusing to make a reference of the disputes. In order to illustrate the point, I would do it better to extract only one of the reasons which have been indicated in the counter-affidavit as a ground for refusal to refer one of the items of disputes. Item No. 10 of the disputes relates to the cases of Jai Jai Ram and Bhagwan Tiwary, Assistant Purchase Assistants. In order to illustrate the point, I would do it better to extract only one of the reasons which have been indicated in the counter-affidavit as a ground for refusal to refer one of the items of disputes. Item No. 10 of the disputes relates to the cases of Jai Jai Ram and Bhagwan Tiwary, Assistant Purchase Assistants. They were designated as purchase assistants along with one or more persons who had been promoted as a senior purchase assistant, and the dispute so far as these two employees are concerned was for promoting and designating them as senior purchase assistants. Paragraph 15 of the writ application deals with the case of these" two persons, and this paragraph has been replied to in paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit, where it has been stated: "The question of designating these workmen as senior Purchase Assistants does not arise as the post of Senior Purchase Assistant is in higher scale and can be filled up by promotion of Assistant Purchase Assistant on the basis of merit and seniority as per promotion policy of the management. Therefore, this case was not referred to for adjudication." I have quoted from the counter-affidavit only one instance to bring home the point as to what actually the reason was or could be for taking the decision by the Government. Specific reasons have been given with respect to each of the fourteen items of disputes in the counter-affidavit. Before, however, recording a concluded opinion, I deem it necessary to consider the scheme of the relevant provision of the Act and the authorities cited at the Bar. The report of the Conciliation Officer which is required to be filed under sub-section (4) of Section 12, after the close of the investigation, is to be sent by him only to the appropriate Government "setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof...... and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at". The scope of the enquiry and investigation of the Conciliation Officer under the very scheme of the Act is entirely different and the appropriate Government has to take its own decision either for making a reference or not to make reference. and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at". The scope of the enquiry and investigation of the Conciliation Officer under the very scheme of the Act is entirely different and the appropriate Government has to take its own decision either for making a reference or not to make reference. In the latter case, however, it must record reasons for taking that view and communicate it to the parties concerned. Whereas it is true that the decision of the appropriate Government under Section 12 (5) not to make a reference as well settled by a series of decisions, is only an administrative act, and not a judicial or quasi-judicial adjudication, the power resting with the appropriate Government Nonetheless, the statute itself requires that in case the Government takes a decision not to make a reference, it must record the reasons therefor. 8. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1964 SC 1617 ), the appropriate Government need not give "an elaborate order indicating exhaustively all the reasons that weighed in its mind in refusing to make a reference", it is desirable that the party concerned should be "told clearly and precisely the reasons why no reference is made......... so that the reasons should stand public scrutiny". This provision has apparently been made in order to prove an objective test which may be subjected to judicial scrutiny. It is, however, again well settled that once the reasons are stated, it is not open for the court in a writ proceeding to examine the propriety or the correctness of the said reasons, but at the same time the order is liable to a judicial scrutiny by a writ court to examine as to whether the reasons for refusing to make a reference are irrelevant or foreign. In other words, if the court is satisfied that the reasons given by the appropriate Government for refusing to make a reference are extraneous and not germane to the disputes under consideration, then the court can issue and would be justified in issuing a writ of mandamus. This proposition has been very clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan, ( AIR 1960 SC 1223 ) as well as in the case of Bombay Union of Journalists (supra). This proposition has been very clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan, ( AIR 1960 SC 1223 ) as well as in the case of Bombay Union of Journalists (supra). 9. This court also had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Bihar State Electric Supply Workers Union v. State of Bihar (1969 Lab IC 326) (Pat.), where also some of the demands were referred for adjudication, and others were not. The order was challenged on the ground that the State Government had not properly acted under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 (4) and (5) of the Act. In that case, the petitioner Union was communicated with this information that it was "inexpedient to refer the outstanding disputes to adjudication". In the counter-affidavit filed in this court, it was stated on behalf of the State Government that it had considered the failure report given by the Conciliation Officer under Section 12 (4). It was held by this court that on consideration of the failure report, the provision of Section 12 (5) was attracted and either the State Government had to refer the pending disputes for adjudication on being satisfied that there was a case for reference, or, if no reference was made, it had to record reasons, therefor and communicate the same to the parties concerned. Merely by informing the petitioner Union that it would not be expedient to refer the unsettled disputes to adjudication, cannot be taken to be the compliance with Section 12 (5). which was a mandatory provision. The State Government was, accordingly, called upon by a writ of mandamus to act according to law. This court quoted with approval an observation of the Bombay High Court in Engineering Staff Union v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1959 Bom 390 ) and I would do better to extract the relevant quotation hereunder: "The very limited jurisdiction that the court has to exercise is to compel Government to give proper reasons if the reasons given by Government are not reasons which fall within the ambit of Section 12 (5). It is true that it would not be sufficient for Government merely to assert its ipse dixit and to say that we are not satisfied that a reference should be made. That would be no reason at all. It is true that it would not be sufficient for Government merely to assert its ipse dixit and to say that we are not satisfied that a reference should be made. That would be no reason at all. The reasons must disclose the mental process which has resulted in Government not being satisfied........." Again in the case of Sureshwar Narain v. Govt. of Bihar, 1971-2 Lab LJ 152 = (1972 Lab IC 462) (Pat.), where the impugned order communicated to the petitioner of that case refusing to make a reference was of the barest nature only stating that in the opinion of the State Government, the dispute was not fit for reference, this court, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Bombay Union of Journalists ( AIR 1964 SC 1617 ) (supra) set aside the order. 10. I have already sufficiently indicated that the impugned order does not disclose any reason for refusing to refer the disputes for adjudication. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that inasmuch as the order does indicate the materials which were considered for taking the decision and there being no complaint by the petitioner that there was any further material for consideration in taking a decision in the matter by the Government, the order fully indicated that the State Government had applied its mind to the merits of the disputes and at the same time had fully disclosed the mental process through which the decision had been reached. In my opinion, the argument does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of Section 13 (5) of the party being clearly and precisely told of the reasons for refusing to make the reference. Once the reasons are disclosed, find the same are challenged on the ground that they were based on consideration of irrelevant and extraneous materials, then only this statement could be of any relevancy to meet the challenge and to show that the decision was based upon the consideration of the relevant materials germane to the disputes. Once the reasons are disclosed, find the same are challenged on the ground that they were based on consideration of irrelevant and extraneous materials, then only this statement could be of any relevancy to meet the challenge and to show that the decision was based upon the consideration of the relevant materials germane to the disputes. But the disclosure only of the fact that the Government has considered the relevant materials, without however, indicating the reasons for taking the view, would not be a due compliance of the requirement of Section 12 (5), and the disclosure of the materials considered by the appropriate Government for reaching the decision would not take the place of recording the reasons for the decision. In my considered opinion, the facts disclosed in the impugned order cannot, by any stretch of imagination be said to be reasons for refusing to make the reference by the State Government as contemplated by law. I would like to observe that there seems to be a meaningful purpose underlying this legislative wisdom providing for disclosure of. the reasons. This is the only protection which is afforded to the persons concerned to ensure that the reasons which impelled the authority not to make the reference were such as had a rational nexus or close proximity with the object and germane to the context and scope of the power vested under Section 12 (5) and also to afford a check and prevent the appropriate Government from taking any capricious and ill-considered action as the Gpvernment might not take the risk of giving such reasons which would be open to condemnation. 11. Now remains for consideration two more decisions cited by the learned Government pleader. He placed strong reliance upon a decision of a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Commonwealth Trust Ltd., Calicut v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1966 Ker 148 ) where although in the order communicated under Section 12 (5), no reasons were stated, the order was upheld on the ground that in the counter-affidavit filed in the writ case, the reasons for refusing to make the reference were disclosed. With great respect to the learned Judge, I find myself completely unable to take a similar view, as in that case, the mandatory provision of Section 12 (5) may be deliberately violated and the aggrieved party will have to undergo the painful necessity of going to the High Court in order to ascertain the reasons for the Government decision. 12. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto also placed reliance upon a Bench decision of this court in Dalmia Nagar Mazdoor Union v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 Pat 41 = (1968 Lab IC 41) in support of his contention that in any view of the matter, this court should not interfere with the order as the issuance of a writ would be entirely futile for the reason that the State Government has already considered all the relevant materials in coming to the decision in question. There is no warrant for this argument. The authority relied upon by Mr. Mahto does not support such a general proposition. Whereas it is, no doubt, true that it is not our practice to issue meaningless writs, it cannot be said on the facts of the present case that the issue of writ in this case would be in any way meaningless as the State Government can certainly be directed by a rule of mandamus to act in accordance with the provision contained in Section 12 (5) of the Act. The case of Dalmianagar Mazdoor Union was not a case under Section 12 (5) of the Act and issuance of a writ was refused in a circumstance entirely different when this court on reference to the original record had been satisfied that for the technical defect in question the issuance of the writ would be futile and infructuous in the end. The analogy of that case has got no application to the facts of the present case 13. At this stage I feel tempted to quote the following observations of Chagla, C. J., from the case of Engineering Staff Union v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1959 Bom 390 ): "When Government is functioning under Section 12 (5), it is not functioning in the interest of the employers or of employees. It is functioning in the interest of industrial peace and in order to bring about a fair and equitable settlement in the disputes between the parties. It is functioning in the interest of industrial peace and in order to bring about a fair and equitable settlement in the disputes between the parties. Therefore it cannot be assumed that in any dispute even in a dispute to which Government as employer is a party Government would not act with that sense of duty and responsibility which the Legislature required of it." 14. The result of all these discussions is that this application must succeed and it be held that the State Government has not acted according to the mandatory provision of Section 12 (5) of the Act and they must be called upon to do so. Let a writ of mandamus, accordingly, issue calling upon the State Government to act according to law as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case however, I shall direct the petitioner to bear its own costs. 15. I agree