JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Onkar Nath Kapoor, workman, and the U. P. Bank Employees Federation, challenge the validity of the orders of the Central Government dated 30-8-1972, 19-9-1972 and 1-12-1972, refusing to refer dispute between the petitioners and the State Bank of India for adjudication to Industrial Court. 2. Onkar Nath Kapoor, petitioner No. 1, was employed as Cashier in the State Bank of India on temporary basis. He failed to qualify at the test held for absorbing him in a permanent capacity. His services were terminated with effect from 30-6-1971. The workman and the U. P. Bank Employees Federation after making the demand on the employers for reinstatement, initiated conciliation proceedings. On failure of the conciliation proceedings the Conciliation Officer submitted a report to the Central Government under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Government considered the report but it refused to refer the dispute for adjudication for the reasons recorded in its letter dated 30-8-1972 addressed to the parties. In that letter the Central Government stated as under: " I am directed to say that as per policy of the Bank, recruitment on permanent basis is done on the basis of the written test. Shri Onkar Nath Kapoor was given chances but he failed to qualify for a permanent post. As such the action of the management in terminating his services does not appear to be mala fide. The Government of India, therefore, do not consider the dispute prima facie fit for reference to adjudication." The petitioners thereupon made representations to the Government for reconsidering the matter but the Central Government by its letters dated 19-9-1972 and 1-12-1972 informed the petitioners that on reconsideration the Central Government did not find any reason to take a different view. 3. Sri R. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Central Government acted in excess of its jurisdiction in deciding the dispute itself, its decision is based on irrelevant considerations and the' order of refusal is vitiated in law. He further contended that the question that petitioner was a temporary employee or a permanent workman was a disputed question of fact and it could be decided only by appropriate Industrial Court. He further contended that the question that petitioner was a temporary employee or a permanent workman was a disputed question of fact and it could be decided only by appropriate Industrial Court. The Central Government could not give a final decision on the question, therefore reference should have been made-for adjudication. 4. Under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act where the appropriate Government is of the opinion that any dispute exists or is apprehended it may at any time refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Industrial or National Tribunal, or any other Industrial Court. Under S. 10 of the Act the Government performs an administrative function in making a reference or in refusing to make a reference of a dispute for adjudication. Section 12 of the Act deals with duties of the Conciliation Officer. If the Conciliation Officer fails to arrive at a settlement of the dispute he is required to submit a report to the appropriate Government. Under S. 12 (5) of the Act, if on a consideration of the report referred to in subsec. (4) the Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference it can make a reference under S. 10 of the Act but where it does not make such reference, it must record reasons and communicate the same to the parties concerned. The requirement of recording reasons does not make the order judicial or quasi judicial, instead it continues to be administrative in nature. Sometimes reasons are necessary to be contained in an administrative order if the statute so requires. Section 10 read with S. 12 (5) of the Act would show that the Government performs an administrative function in making a reference or in refusing to make a reference although in the latter case it has to communicate its reasons: to the parties concerned, but the nature; of the function or the power of the Government continues to be administrative. Merely because the Government forms opinion on the facts of a case as a preliminary step in the dis- charge of its functions does not make its order judicial or quasi judicial. 5. In State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy ( AIR 1953 SC 53 ), it was held that in making reference under S. 10 (1) of the Act the Government performs an administrative act and the order is administrative in nature. 5. In State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy ( AIR 1953 SC 53 ), it was held that in making reference under S. 10 (1) of the Act the Government performs an administrative act and the order is administrative in nature. In State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan ( AIR 1960 SC 1223 ), the Supreme Court held that the order of the Government under S. 12 (5) of the Act is an administrative order and not a judicial or a quasi judicial order. 6. The question which then arises for determination is whether the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is entitled to interfere with the order of Government refusing to refer a dispute for adjudication. It cannot be disputed that whenever a challenge is made to the appropriate Government's order refusing to refer a dispute for adjudication, it is open to the High Court to examine the question as to whether the Government considered the relevant facts and circumstances before passing the order of refusal and further that the reasons were communicated to the parties concerned. If no reasons are recorded and communicated to the parties concerned, order of refusal would be bad and it is open to the High Court to issue mandamus directing the Government to reconsider and refer the dispute for adjudication, but if reasons are recorded and communicated to the parties it is not open to the High Court to sit in appeal over the order and to consider the propriety and satisfactory character of the reasons given by the Government. If the order of refusal by the appropriate Government is based on irrelevant considerations, the order would be vitiated and liable to be quashed. (See K. P. Krishnan's case (supra)). While exercising its power under Ss. 10 and 12 (5) of the Act the appropriate Government is under a statutory obligation to consider the relevant matters in- reaching its satisfaction and in that process it is open to it to consider the prima facie merits of the dispute. If the claim of the workman appears to be frivolous or highly belated the Government may refuse to refer the dispute for adjudication. The Government may refuse to refer the dispute if it is not expedient to refer the same for adjudication. If the claim of the workman appears to be frivolous or highly belated the Government may refuse to refer the dispute for adjudication. The Government may refuse to refer the dispute if it is not expedient to refer the same for adjudication. It is} however well-settled that he appropriate Government has jurisdiction to examine prima facie merits of the case and this enquiry is not foreign to the jurisdiction of the Government while dealing with the dispute under S. 10 (1) of the Act. 7. In Bombay Union of Journalists v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1964 SC 1617 ), it was held that it will not be possible to accept the plea that the appropriate Government is precluded to consider even prima facie merits of the dispute when it decided the question whether its power to make a reference should be exercised under S. 10 (1) read with S. 12 (5) or not. A prima facie examination of the merits cannot be said to be foreign to the enquiry which the appropriate Government is entitled to make in dealing with the dispute under S. 10. Dealing with the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution the Supreme Court held that if it appears that the reasons given show that the appropriate Government took into account a consideration which was irrelevant or foreign that may no doubt justify a claim for a writ of mandamus but it is not open to the workman to claim a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground that certain pleas raised by the workman were not considered by the Government. In Prem Kacker v. State of Haryana (AIR 1976. SC 1474), the order of the State Government under S. 12 (5) of the Act refusing to refer a dispute for adjudication on the ground that the workman concerned was not a 'workman' within the meaning of the Act and as such the case was not fit for reference to adjudication, was considered and the Supreme Court held that the State Government has jurisdiction to satisfy itself relating to the prima facie merits of the case and the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the order to consider propriety or satisfactory character of the reasons given by the Government. 8. 8. In the instant case, the reasons given by the Government show that, firstly, the order of termination was justified as the petitioner had failed to qualify himself for recruitment on permanent basis as he was not successful at the written test. There is no dispute that the workman was appointed temporarily and he failed to qualify for permanent post; consequently his services were terminated. The order of termination did not appear to be mala fide. While examining the prima facie fitness of a case for reference to adjudication it is open to the appropriate Government to consider the nature and merit of the dispute. The material placed before the court by the parties clearly shows that Onkar Nath Kapoor, petitioner No. 1, was employed temporarily for a fixed term on the post of cashier. The post of cashier is an important post in the State Bank and under the prevailing practice the management of the Bank never appointed a person permanently on that post unless his suitability was ascertained through written test. The management gave opportunity to the petitioner to appear at the test and qualify for appointment to that post in a permanent capacity but the petitioner failed to qualify. Consequently the management terminated his service on the expiry of the term of his service on 30-6-1971. We are satisfied that the petitioner's claim for referring the dispute was frivolous and prima facie there was no merit in it. The Central Government in refusing to refer the dispute acted within its jurisdiction and the petitioners are therefore not entitled to any relief. 9. In, the result the petition fails and is' accordingly dismissed. There will be no order at to costs.