ORDER This Rule is directed against Memos dated 23rd June, 1978, 10th August, 1978, 24th August, 1978, 9th September, 1978 and 6th October, 1978, as referred to in the writ petition. 2. It appears that six employees, namely, Sri Chandra Kanta Das, Sri Shib Kinkar Ghosh, Sri Jagannath Dey, Sri Sachi Barman, Sri Devidas Ghosh and Sri Ratan Mondal, being respondents nos. 4 to 9, were employees of the petitioner, a public limited company. The said employees were charge-sheeted by the company for certain alleged misconduct and after holding a departmental enquiry, the petitioner company dismissed the said respondents from service, As proceedings were pending before the 4th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, by way of a Reference at the time of dismissal of the said employees the petitioner company filed an application under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the action taken against the said respondents nos. 4 to 9. It appears that the 4th Industrial Tribunal granted approval for the said action of dismissal by the petitioner company. It also appears that thereafter the Engineering Shramik Union raised au industrial over the said dismissal of respondents nos. 4 to 9 and a conciliation proceed-started before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, West Bengal. It, however, appears that the parties could not come to any settlement. A failure report was submitted by the said Deputy Labour Commissioner to the State Government and the State Government also refused to refer the dispute to any Industrial Tribunal under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act on the finding that in granting approval under S. 33(2)(b) the Industrial Tribunal had come to the conclusion that there was no case of victimisation of the said employees and the order of dismissal was passed after holding the departmental enquiry. It appears that the Secretary, Engineering Shramik Union, viz, Respondent no. 10 thereafter again made representation to the State Government for reconsideration of its decision and for reference of the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. It was contended by the said Union that the decision under S. 33(2)(b) was not really on merits of the case and the scope and power of the Tribunal in granting approval under S. 33(2)(b) were limited and only a prima facie view was to be expressed by the Tribunal in the matter of according approval. It was contended by the said Union that the decision under S. 33(2)(b) was not really on merits of the case and the scope and power of the Tribunal in granting approval under S. 33(2)(b) were limited and only a prima facie view was to be expressed by the Tribunal in the matter of according approval. On receipt of the said further representation from the Union, the State Government referred the said representation to the Labour Commissioner, West Bengal, for favour of his report and views and the Deputy Labour Commissioner, thereafter, issued notices to the petitioner company to submit its views on the said representation of the Union. The petitioner company, in the instant writ petition has challenged the jurisdiction and legality of initiating a second conciliation proceeding after the disposal of the initial conciliation proceeding with the submission of a failure report on the earlier occasion. 3. Dr, Pal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner company, contends that a conciliation proceeding was started under the provision of S. 12 of the Industrial Disputed Act and the two termini of starting and conclusion of the conciliation proceeding have been provided for in the Industrial Disputes Act, Dr. Pal contends that a conciliation proceeding on the basis of dispute raised on behalf of said dismissed employees was initiated and after holding sittings with the petitioner company and the representative Union, the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report and the State Government accepted the same and refused to make a reference under S. 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act after giving reasons. Accordingly the conciliation proceeding bad come to an end in the eye law. Dr. Pal contends that after the same, on the self same material there was no occasion for initiating a second conciliation proceeding. Dr. Pal, has, however submitted that the State Government has the authority to make a reference under S. 10 although, on earlier occasion, the State Government accepted the failure report of the conciliation officer and refused to make a reference if the State Government is satisfied that an industrial dispute is existing and there is a necessity for a reference. Dr. Pal, has, however submitted that the State Government has the authority to make a reference under S. 10 although, on earlier occasion, the State Government accepted the failure report of the conciliation officer and refused to make a reference if the State Government is satisfied that an industrial dispute is existing and there is a necessity for a reference. He, however, contends that the purported initiation of the second conciliation proceeding is not only misconceived in the facts and circumstances of the case, but the said initiation is also illegal and without jurisdiction, because there was no fresh material and/or cause of action on the basis of which a subsequent conciliation proceeding would have been lawfully initiated. Dr. Pal contends that the Conciliation Officer, on the basis of dispute raised on behalf of the dismissed employees against the said order of dismissal, started a conciliation proceeding and attempted to have an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. But having failed in his attempt, he has submitted his report to the State Government. Hence, on the same set of facts, there is no further occasion to start a conciliation proceeding once more and such initiation of the conciliation proceeding for the second time is not only illegal and without jurisdiction but an abuse of the powers vested under S. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Mr. Dutt, the learned Counsel appearing for the Union and the dismissed employees, has, however, submitted Chat simply because the conciliation proceeding ended with a failure report on the earlier occasion, it cannot be contended that subsequently a conciliation proceeding cannot be started. He submits that the State Government over-emphasized the adjudication made under S. 33(2)(b) and refused to make a reference simply because in the said adjudication under S. 33(2)(b), the order of dismissal was held valid. He has submitted that the scope and purpose of the enquiry under S. 33(2)(b) are quite limited and such enquiry is only a prima facie enquiry of a limited nature. Where the domestic enquiry is not defective by a reason of violation of principles of natural justice or its finding being perverse or by reason of unfair labour practice, the Tribunal bas only to be satisfied that there is prima facie case for dismissal. Where the domestic enquiry is not defective by a reason of violation of principles of natural justice or its finding being perverse or by reason of unfair labour practice, the Tribunal bas only to be satisfied that there is prima facie case for dismissal. For holding such enquiry, the Tribunal does not sit as an appellate Court and come to its finding of facts, Mr. Dutt also contends that a permission or approval granted under S. 33(2)(b) will not make an order of discharge or dismissal legal or valid and the legality or validity is liable to be decided on a reference under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. For this contention, Mr. Dutt has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd v. Suresh Chand reported in 1978(2) SCC at page 144. Mr. Dutt also contends that S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act confers a discretionary power on the State Government and this discretionary power can be exercised on being satisfied that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. Such power conferred on the State Government is an administrative power and the action of the State Government in -making a reference is also an administrative action. The adequacy or sufficiency of the material on which the opinion is formed by the State Government is beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. For this contention Mr. Dutt refers to another decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of M/s. Avon Service Production Agency (P) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana (A 1979 SC 170) Mr. Dutt submits that there is no manner of doubt that an industrial dispute is pending and such dispute has been raised by the employees or the Union representing them, It is, therefore, quite open to the State Government to consider the existence of the industrial dispute and to make a reference in order to bring peace in the industry. He submits that the Union specifically drew the attention of the Government that in making a reference earlier the State Government had wrongly overemphasized the approval given by the Industrial Tribunal under S. 33(3)(b). But the power of the State Government remained unaffected for making reference in spite of the fact that on earlier occasion the State Government refused to make a reference under S. 10. But the power of the State Government remained unaffected for making reference in spite of the fact that on earlier occasion the State Government refused to make a reference under S. 10. He submits that became such representation, was subsequently made by the Union, the State Government thought it desirable that such representation should form the basis of a conciliation proceeding once more so that there may be an attempt for amicable settlement by the parties. Mr. Dutt contends that in the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be contended that there was no material on the basis of which subsequent conciliation proceeding was initiated. As such, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere at the present stage. 5. Mr. Ghosh, the learned Counsel appearing for the State, has submitted that, for the purpose of considering the subsequent representation of the Union, the State Government thought it desirable to have the report and the views of the Labour Commissioner and, precisely for the said purpose, it asked for such report and views by its Memo dated 18th November, 1976. He submits that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, for the purpose of giving further report, asked the petitioner company to make comments. But before any final action could be taken the petitioner company rushed before this Court and moved the writ petition whereupon the instant Rule was issued. Mr. Ghosh submits that the State Government could not take any firm decision on the basis of subsequent representation made by the said Union because of the pendency of the writ petition and the interim order passed therein. 6. After considering the respective submissions of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, it appears to me that although the State Government refused to make reference under S. 10 on earlier occasion, the State Government can make reference even today under S. 10, if the State Government is satisfied that an industrial dispute exists and it is desirable to make a reference under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. In my view, there was no necessity for the State Government asking for a report and views of the Labour Commissioner on the basis of the subsequent representation made by the Union. 7. In my view, there was no necessity for the State Government asking for a report and views of the Labour Commissioner on the basis of the subsequent representation made by the Union. The power under S. 10 can be exercised even without having any conciliation proceeding and even in a case where the State Government at some point of time held the view that no reference was warranted. In the facts of the case, however, Dr. Pal is justified in his contention that there was hardly any scope for conciliation proceeding for the second time over the disputed dismissal of the said employees. An attempt to make a conciliation was taken on the earlier occasion but it ended in failure and the report was submitted. Thereafter, although the Union was dissatisfied with the decision of the state Government in not agreeing to make a reference under S. 10 and although it asked the State Government to reconsider the prayer for a reference, there was neither any new material or a new cause of action for a subsequent conciliation proceeding over the self-same dispute namely the dismissal of the said employees. 8. Accordingly, the purported initiation of a conciliation proceeding by the Deputy Labour Commissioner for the purpose of attempting a settlement must be held to be misconceived and not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondents are, therefore, directed not to proceed with the impugned conciliation proceeding it is, however, made clear that this order will not preclude the State Government to consider the prayer of the Union for making a reference under S. 10. In my view, it is only desirable that such consideration on the representation of the Union for making a reference under S. 10 should be made at an early date because the matter is pending for a pretty long time. The Rule is, accordingly, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Rule disposed of.