JUDGMENT - G.F. COUTO, J.:---The challenge in this writ petition is against the decision taken by the Government and communicated to the petitioners by letter dated 19 the September, 1986, that the Government has considered the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner Nagvekar as not fit to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal. 2. The first petitioner Nagvekar had been appointed as Conductor in the first respondent's Corporation on daily wages, by an order dated 25th December, 1982. On 23rd June, 1985 an order of suspension signed by one V.V. Kunkoliekar was served on the petitioner, suspending him from duties with effect from 24th June, 1985, and further stating that he would be entitled for subsistence allowance as per the Certified standing orders of the Corporation during the period of suspension. An enquiry was, thereafter, held on some misconducts alleged to have been committed by the said petitioner . Ultimately, the petitioner was given a notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service with immediate effect. The petitioner replied to that show cause notice pointing out some irregularities in the enquiry but, finally, by order dated 18 the March, 1986, he was dismissed from the service of the first respondent. An appeal was filed by the petitioner to the Managing Director of the first respondent but, unsuccessfully, since, by order dated 14th April, 1986, the said appeal was dismissed. 3. The petitioner raised, thereafter, an industrial dispute and conciliation proceedings were held before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. No amicable settlement could be reached and, as such, the Conciliation Officer sent his failure report to the Secretary, Labour. The said Secretary however, by this letter dated 19 the September, 1986, informed the petitioner that the Government has not considered the dispute as a fit case for making reference to the Industrial Tribunal as the first petitioner has been dismissed from service after having been given opportunity to defend himself and as the charges against him had been proved beyond doubt. 4. Mr. Sonak, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, challenges the aforesaid communication on several grounds. He mainly contends that the challenged communication dated 19th September, 1986 clearly indicates that the Government has decided the case on merits and, in that has trespassed into the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. 5. There is great force in the above submission of Mr. Sonak. He mainly contends that the challenged communication dated 19th September, 1986 clearly indicates that the Government has decided the case on merits and, in that has trespassed into the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. 5. There is great force in the above submission of Mr. Sonak. In fact, the impugned letter dated 19th September, 1986 clearly indicates that the Government has looked into the merits of the disputes and decided it. It reads as Under: --- I am directed to refer to the industrial dispute on the above subject and to inform you that the Government has not considered the present dispute as fit case for making reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as Shri Tulsidas Nagvekar, conductor has been dismissed from service after giving him opportunity to defend and as the charges against him are proved beyond doubt.” It is now well settled that it is not open to the Government to decide an Industrial Dispute on merits and, at the highest, the Government can look into the dispute only to see whether a prima facie case for reference exists or not. The above communication clearly shows that a definite finding had been arrived at by the Government as regards the charges levelled against the first petitioner and that the Government felt that the said charges were duly proved. This kind of finding goes to the merits of the very Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner and, if this was permissible, practically no industrial dispute would be referred to the Industrial Tribunal. In this connection, it is pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in (The Workmen of Syndicate Bank, Madras v. Government of India and another)1, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1667. In that case, the appropriate Government had refused to refer a dispute raised by a Bank employee on the ground that the charges levelled against him were duly proved in a duly constituted inquiry and that the penalty imposed was after following the required procedure laid down. The Supreme Court quashed the said order and observed that it was not right for the Government of India to refuse to make the reference on the ground that the charges against the said workman had been proved in a proper departmental inquiry and penalty had been imposed after following the required procedure. The Supreme Court quashed the said order and observed that it was not right for the Government of India to refuse to make the reference on the ground that the charges against the said workman had been proved in a proper departmental inquiry and penalty had been imposed after following the required procedure. The Court added that if such ground were permissible, it would be the easiest thing for the Management to avoid a reference adjudication and to deprive the workmen of the opportunity of having their dispute referred for adjudication even if the order holding the charges of misconduct proved to be unreasonable or perverse or having been actuated by mala fides or even if the penalty imposed on the workmen was totally disproportionate to the offence said to have been proved. In the light of the above observations of the Supreme Court, it is obvious that this petition succeeds and the impugned decision of the Government communicated to the petitioners by letter dated 19th September, 1986, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. The result is that the Rule is made absolute and, consequently, the impugned order dated 19th September, 1986, is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned Government department with a direction to appreciate afresh as to whether or not a reference is to be made. This should be done within six weeks from today. There will be no order as to costs, in the circumstances of the case. Rule made absolute. -----