JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner No. 1, an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India, who was employed as an assistant in the Divisional Office, Indore, along with the Union, have preferred this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the order, annexure C, passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhopal, whereby the appropriate Government refused to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court. ( 2. ) FACTS leading to this petition are that petitioner No. 1 was charged-sheeted on 31st January, 1983, for the charges levelled against him therein. After the domestic enquiry, the Divisional Manager imposed a penalty of deduction of salary to the minimum of time scale applicable to the workman. The workman preferred an appeal to the Zonal Manager, who rejected the same. The petitioner then again preferred another appeal to the Central Zone of the LIC of India. The Chairman of LIC of India modified the order of punishment into one of reduction of basic pay by three steps in the scale as applicable to the workman. Aggrieved by this, petitioner No. 1 through his Union, petitioner No. 2, raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, who was seized of the matter. After notice, respondent No. 1 opposed the dispute and contended that there is no case on merits for referring the dispute for adjudication of the Tribunal. As no settlement was arrived, the appropriate Government, after considering merits of the dispute, refused to refer the same, holding that there is no merit in the case of the workman. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioners under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3. ) SHRI B. K. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri C. S. Chhazed, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, LIC of India, agreed for hearing of the petition on merits finally at the admission stage only. Counsel heard. ( 4. ) AFTER hearing counsel, we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. ( 3. ) SHRI B. K. Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri C. S. Chhazed, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, LIC of India, agreed for hearing of the petition on merits finally at the admission stage only. Counsel heard. ( 4. ) AFTER hearing counsel, we are of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. It is now well-settled that the appropriate Government under Sections 10 and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has no power of adjudicating the Industrial dispute on merits, as the same is the function of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal. For refusal of the reference for adjudication, the only exceptions are that if the appropriate Government, on a proper examination of the demand, came to the conclusion that the demands arc either perverse or frivolous and do not merit a reference, and in that case only, the appropriate Government can refuse to refer the dispute. It is also settled that the 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 the adjudication of valid disputes. To allow the Government to do so would be to render Section 10 and Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, nugatory, see M. P. Irrigation Karmachari Sangh v. State of M. P. 1985-I-LLJ 519. As alluded to in the facts, the appropriate Government in fact usurped its function and decided that the dispute had no merits. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that in this case, the Government exceeded its jurisdiction in refusing to, refer the dispute to the Tribunal by making its own assessment unilaterally. The dispute raised in this case has necessarily to be decided by the appropriate Tribunal on merits. ( 5. ) IN the result, we set aside the order of the Central Government refusing to refer the dispte and direct the appropriate Government to reconsider the dispute so raised and, after reconsideration, to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petition is allowed with costs. Respondent No. 2 is to bear the costs of the petitioners. Counsels fee Rs. 300, if already certified.