Judgment :- 1. The short question arising for consideration is whether one party to an industrial dispute alone can maintain a petition under S.10 (2) of the I.D. Act for a reference of the dispute for adjudication? The answer depends upon the construction of S.10(2). S.10(2): "Where the parties to an industrial dispute apply in the prescribed manner, whether jointly or separately, for a reference of the dispute to a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, the appropriate Government, if satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party shall make the reference accordingly." 2. The section provides that for reference of the dispute to a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, the application must be made either jointly or separately and the appropriate Government if satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party, shall make the reference. 3. The conditions that should be satisfied for invoking S.10 (2) are: There should exist an industrial dispute. The parties should make application to refer the industrial dispute in the prescribed manner. The application can either be joint or separate; but it is mandatory that the request for reference must be made by all the parties to the dispute. An application satisfying all the above conditions however, will not automatically be allowed and the reference made unless the appropriate Government is satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party. And therefore where the application for reference under S.10(2) satisfies all the requirements mentioned above, the Government shall, without any further enquiry as to the existence of the industrial dispute, refer the said dispute for adjudication to any of the authorities mentioned is the section, namely, a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal. 4. A reference in this connection to the following rulings is profitable. (1) Free Press Labour Union and others v. State of Madras and others (1951 (2) L.L.J. 302 (Mad), (2) Poona Labour Union v. State of Maharashtra (1969 (2) L.L.J. 291 (Bom), and (3) Travancore Mineral Worker's Union v. Government of India (12 F.J.F. 180 (Punj). 5. In the case on hand there is no dispute that the application was made only by the employees. There is no application from the employer. If that be so, the application of the employees under S.10 (2) seeking a reference of the dispute is not maintainable. 5. In the case on hand there is no dispute that the application was made only by the employees. There is no application from the employer. If that be so, the application of the employees under S.10 (2) seeking a reference of the dispute is not maintainable. 6.The order under challenge reads: "I am directed to refer to your representation, dated 5-2-1983 addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India. Ministry of Labour and a copy of the same endorsed to this office amongst others, on the above subject, and to state that the dispute can be referred to the Tribunal under sub-s. 2 of S.10 of the I.D. Act only when both the parties to the dispute jointly make a representation" 7. It is seen from the order that there was no application from the employer and therefore the authority concerned rightly refused to refer the dispute for adjudication. 8. For the reasons stated above, the O. P. is liable to be dismissed. I accordingly dismiss the petition. However, I make it clear that nothing stated in this judgment will preclude the petitioners from perusing their remedy by initiating appropriate proceedings in respect of matters made mention of in Ext. P1 as provided for under the industrial laws.