JUDGMENT 1. - A shoryqucstion is involved in this case as to whether the Central Govt. could have refused to make a reference of the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Judge, Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal? 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Beldar on daily wages with effect from May 28, 1981 and he was directed to work under the control of the respondent No. 6, Assit. Engineer, P&T (Civil) Sub Division 15, Krishna Marg, C - scheme, Jaipur. His monthly emoluments were Rs. 270/-. Thereafter, the petitioner was ordered to perform his duties in the office of DMT (Maintenance Engineer) and accordingly he performed his duties. The case of the petitioner is that he put in continuous service from May 28, 1981 to December 25, 1983 and when he went on December 26, 1983 to the office as usual he was not allowed to resume his duties by the respondent No. 6. The petitioner is said to have protested against the action of the non-petitioner No. 6 but his protest did (sic not) bear an) fruit & the respondent No.6 did not pay any attention and when even after notice nothing was done, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central) Jaipur wherein it was specifically stated that his termination tantamount to the retrenchment as defined in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the ID Act) as the same was arbitrary and in total breach of mandatory provisions of chapter A of the ID Act which includes Sections 25 F, 25-G, 25-H, Rule 77 and 78 of the Rules. The Assistant Labour Commissioner called upon the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and they put in appearance and submitted reply and took a stand that department of Posts & Telegraphs is not the Industry and is not cove- red under the provisions of the ID Act. It was also stated that the status of the petitioner was of casual employee and no compliance with the provisions of the ID Act was necessary. Rejoinder was filed by the petitioner wherein he stated that he was a daily rated worker. There was a failure report by the Conciliation Officer and the matter was referred to the Central Government an.1 as already stated the Central Government has refused to make a reference. Rejoinder was filed by the petitioner wherein he stated that he was a daily rated worker. There was a failure report by the Conciliation Officer and the matter was referred to the Central Government an.1 as already stated the Central Government has refused to make a reference. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for Union of India there can be no dispute that the Central Government has refused to make the reference under Section 10 of the ID Act. The narration of facts will make it clear that the petitioner claims to have been employed as daily rated worker with effect May 28, 1981 to December 25, 1983 s hen under verbal orders he was retrenched under section 2 (oo) of the ID Act, whether the retrenchment could have been made or not. The question is such which can be adjudged by the Judge, Labour Court on a reference to it. The Central Government cannot take upon itself the functions of the Judge, Labour Court and cannot refuse to make reference only on the ground that it does not admit that the department of Post & Telegraphs is an industry and the petitioner is not covered under the ID Act. It can hardly be disputed after a catena of cases of Supreme Court and this Court that the Post and Telegraphs department is an industry and the provisions of the ID Act are applicable to it. In case of M.P. Irrigation Karamcbari Sangh v. State of MP and another AIR 1985 SC 860 , it has been held that: "There may be exceptional cases in which the State Government may, on a proper examination of the demand, come to a conclusion that the demands are ei her perverse or frivolous and do not merit a reference. Government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand with a view to decline reference and courts will always be vigilant whenever the Government attempts to usurp the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication of valid disputes. To allow the Government to do so would be to render Section 10 and S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act nugatory." In that case it was held that the Government exceed its jurisdiction in refusing to refer the dispute to the Tribunal by making its own assessment unilaterally of the reasonableness of demands on merits. To allow the Government to do so would be to render Section 10 and S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act nugatory." In that case it was held that the Government exceed its jurisdiction in refusing to refer the dispute to the Tribunal by making its own assessment unilaterally of the reasonableness of demands on merits. The Government no doubt has jurisdiction to examine a case whether to refer a dispute or not but it has to act reasonably and cannot go through the disputed facts and decline to refer such a case. 3. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The Central Government, Union of India through the Secretary to the Government, is directed to make a reference of the dispute for adjudication to the Judge, Labour Court as early as possible but not later than three months. Costs made easy.Petition allowed. *******