ORDER 1. The aggrieved alleged workman whose request to refer the dispute between himself and his employer, the 2nd respondent, was turned down by the 1st respondent, Government is the petitioner. In this proceeding, he seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of a certiorarified mandamus after calling for all the connected records from the 1st respondent pertaining to the passing of the G.O.Ms. No.817 dated 2.4.1980 and the orders rejecting the review petitions made in Letter No.44010/122/82 dated 25.8.1982 and Letter No.13916/R2/83-l dated 23.3.1983 and to quash the said G.O. and orders, consequently directing the 1st respondent to refer the non-employment of the petitioner under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein referred to as the Act). 2. Section 10 of the Act provides that- “10. (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing- (a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or (b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or (c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication, or (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c): Provided further that where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this sub section notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced. Provided also that where the dispute in relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be competent for that Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government.” Thus according to the plain meaning of this provision, it is for the Government to apply its mind and form the opinion whether any industrial dispute existed or is apprehended and thereafter to decide either to make the reference or to refuse it. When this Court can interfere with the Government's refusal to refer the dispute under section 10, is well brought about by the Supreme Court in Prem Kakar v. State of Haryana Prem Kakar v. State of Haryana (1976) 32 F.L.R.343=(1976)3 S.C.C.433=49 F.J.R.51 & 101=(1976) Lab.I.C.1028=A.I.R.1976 S.C.1474. In that case, the Government found that the appellant was not a workman within the definition of workman in the Act and therefore, refused reference. The Supreme Court therefore held that as the Government found that the appellant was not a workman, it was not a fit case for reference for adjudication and that the High Court rightly rejected the workman's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is therefore necessary to examine whether in this case the Government did apply its mind when it declined to make the reference. Hence, it is necessary to re-produce the impugned order: “The Government have examined the conciliation report of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) Madras first read above in regard to an industrial dispute raised by Thiru S.Gopal against the management of Eswaran and Sons Engineers Private Limited, Madras-19, over the issue of his non-employment and they pass the following orders: It is reported that this is a case of simple termination at the end of probation period. 2. Hence the Government consider that there is no case to refer the issue in dispute for adjudication.” From the above order, in my view, it is too difficult to presume that the Government has applied its mind and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was only a probationer and that therefore, the present is a case of simple termination at the end of probation period. On the strength of the report submitted by the Conciliation Officer that ‘this is a case of simple termination at the end of probation period’, the Government came to the conclusion that there is no case to refer the dispute for adjudication. In other words, the Government itself did not consider this vital question as to whether this is a case of simple termination at the end of probation period. It is needless to state that if the Government itself did not apply its mind, it follows that the order though it is an administrative one, is not in accordance with section 10 of the Act. 4. It may not be out of place to point out that in his petition before the Conciliation Officer, the petitioner has made reference to his initial appointment as learner on 20.12.1974, he being subsequently put on probation from 1.1.1978 and the probation being extended by another six months. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in such cases, though the petitioner is a probationer, he will be a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. Though the Government is the exclusive authority to decide one way or the other, yet it owes a duty in law to consider all the circumstances and then pass an order under section 10. 5. I have already pointed out that from the impugned order, 1 am unable to find that the Government did apply its mind and then made the order. 6. On the above technical ground, I am persuaded to accept the writ petition in that the impugned order will be set aside and the Government is directed to pass fresh orders as the Government thinks fit in accordance with section 10 and in the light of the observations made herein. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.