JUDGMENT This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of reference passed by the State Government under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The facts of this case so far as relevant for the purpose of the disposal of the application herein are as follows :- 2. On the 4th of January, 1960, the respondent No. 4 was appointed by the petitioner company as Stenographer on a probation for three months. On the 4th of April, 1960, the respondent No. 4’s service was confirmed. It is stated that at the time of appointment the respondent No. 4 was a Matriculate. But it is stated that subsequently he passed the M. Com. Examination. It is stated that in November, 1961, the petitioner company directed the respondent No. 4 to work under a Junior Executive and a Senior Clerical Assistant. Be that as it may, it appears that certain representations were made by respondent No. 4 to the Managing Director of the Company. According to the management this contained some allegations against the Area Manager concerned. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued on the 27th January, 1969. On the 17th of March, 1969, reply was given to that and thereafter by an order dated 29th of April, 1969, the respondent No. 4 was discharged from service. On the 16th of September, 1969, the respondent No. 4 raised a dispute. There were certain conciliation proceedings and the report was submitted. However, the Government ultimately decided not to refer this matter for adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Being aggrieved by the same, the workmen filed a writ petition in this Court. However, the said writ petition was dismissed and the Rule was discharged. No appeal was preferred therefrom but thin was not the end of the matter. What transpires is that a show cause notice was issued about four years later, that is, on the 18th January, 1974 to the petitioners whereby the Government stated that it wanted to review its earlier decision and wanted to refer the matter for adjudication under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner Company objected to the notice and gave a reply to the same. On the 15th May, 1976, the order of reference was published by the Government. The petitioner Company objected to the notice and gave a reply to the same. On the 15th May, 1976, the order of reference was published by the Government. This is challenged in this proceeding. 3. The learned Advocates appearing in support of the rule has very frankly stated before me that in view of the decision in (1) M/s. Avon Service Production Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and Others reported in AIR 1979 SC 170 , it is no longer open to contend that the second reference by the Government is incompetent, after the Government has officially rejected the case for reference earlier. What has been contended is that there was no fresh consideration and no fresh material find that there is non-application of mind. 4. This challenge being thrown, it was for the Government to justify their action. However, no affidavit has been filed. Accordingly, I sent for the records. From the records it appears that a note was put up for consideration whether the issue be referred to for adjudication. On that there is only a very short order to the following effect: "The issue suggested above is referred to for adjudication. No settlement has been possible." 5. Mr. Sen appearing for the State has stated that there is no other material which can be relied upon. 6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 has also drawn my attention to the M/s". Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd., case (Supra) and submitted that it is not for the court to consider whether there was adequate material before the Government for making an order of reference or not. 7. In my opinion, this application can be disposed of on a short point. I may also point out that the parties also have no objection to the order I propose to pass. In my opinion, it is true that it is not for the court to consider and to sit on appeal over the materials on the basis of which the Government have decided to pass an order of reference. It is also now well settled that the Government can reconsider its decision and pass an order of reference even if on an earlier occasion the Government had declined to pass any such order. It is also now well settled that it is not necessary that there must be any fresh material. It is also now well settled that the Government can reconsider its decision and pass an order of reference even if on an earlier occasion the Government had declined to pass any such order. It is also now well settled that it is not necessary that there must be any fresh material. The Supreme Court has pointed out that it is not absolutely necessary that there should be fresh material before the Government for reconsideration of its earlier decision. The Government may reconsider its decision on account of some new facts brought to its notice or for any other relevant consideration and such other relevant consideration may include the threat to industrial peace by the continued existence of the industrial dispute without any attempt at resolving it and that the reference would at least bring the parties to the talking table. The Supreme Court has also pointed out that the power to make the reference remains in tact and can be exercised if the material and relevant considerations for exercise of powers are available; there being the continued existence of the dispute and the wisdom of referring it in the larger interest of industrial peace and harmony. In my opinion, in the facts of this case this test has not been satisfied. From the records, it does not appear that this matter was considered in proper line. It does not appear that the appropriate authority applied its mind to the considerations involved in such a case. It is an old matter whore already the prayer for a reference has once been rejected. Though that don not prevent the authority concerned to pass an order of reference subsequently there must be a serious and responsible reconsideration of the matter, which means a proper application of mind. In my opinion, in the present case from the records it appears that Government did not apply its mind properly and did not consider the matter properly as they are required to do under the law. In that view of the matter I allow this application and make the Rule absolute to the following extent. 8. Let a writ be issued directing the respondents not to give effect and to cancel and recall the order of Reference No. 1733-IR/IR/111-82/76 dated 15th April, 1976. I make it clear however this would not prevent the Government from acting in accordance with law. 8. Let a writ be issued directing the respondents not to give effect and to cancel and recall the order of Reference No. 1733-IR/IR/111-82/76 dated 15th April, 1976. I make it clear however this would not prevent the Government from acting in accordance with law. If they so want they can pass a fresh order of Reference but only in accordance with law. However, if they intend to do so, in view of a decision of this Court in the case of (2) American Express Informational Banking Corporation v. Union of India, reported in 1979 (1) Calcutta Law Journal 266, the authority concerned must give a hearing to the representatives of the petitioner end the respondent No. 4 before making such reference. I further direct that if the respondent State wants to make any fresh order of reference that must be made within a period of three months from the date of conclusion of hearing to the representatives of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. The Rule is disposed of accordingly. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.