B L. Hansaria, J.— The petitioner a Grade IV employee being sub staff of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI) came to be dismissed from service by an order passed on 25.1.77. The dismissal order was passed in the wake of a departmental enquiry following framing of as many as 10 charges against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved at the dismissal order a conciliation proceeding was held at the behest of the petitioner which however failed. The failure was duly reported to the concerned authority. A demand for reference was thereafter refused on the ground that the action of the Management in dismissing the petitioner from service was justified as it was based on an enquiry "duly constituted and conducted". The petitioner has felt aggrieved at the order of the Government and has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. It is submitted by Shri Sarma that by refusing the matter for adjudication on the aforesaid ground the Government erred in law inasmuch as while exercising power under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for short the Act, the appropriate Government has not to adjudicate upon the dispute but has to see that a prima facie case for reference exists or not. This is the view expressed in Ram Avtar Sharma vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 915 . As per the recent decision in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1565 the Government while considering the question whether reference should be made or not cannot delve into merits of disputes and determine the lis itself. As against the aforesaid submission of Shri Sarma, it is contended by Shri Kakati ably assisted by Shri Kalita that if the allegations of the affected workman be patently frivolous the appropriate Government may refuse a reference as stated in para 6 of Bombay Union of Journalists vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1964 SC 1617 . In this decision it has been further observed that a prima facie examination of the merits cannot be said to be foreign to the enquiry which the appropriate Government is entitled to make while exercising power under section 10(1) of the Act. 3. In this decision it has been further observed that a prima facie examination of the merits cannot be said to be foreign to the enquiry which the appropriate Government is entitled to make while exercising power under section 10(1) of the Act. 3. Shri Sarma has strongly relied on the decision of Ram Avtar a perusal of which shows that the reference was rejected in that case on the ground that the services had been terminated after charges against the delinquent were proved in a domestic enquiry. As to this it was observed by the Court that the assumption underlying the reason assigned by the Government was that the enquiry was consistent with the rules and the standing orders that it was fair and just and that there was unbiased determination and the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. It was observed that the last aspect had assumed considerable importance after the introduction of section HA in the Act which confers power on the Tribunal not only to examine the case of the workman whose service has been terminated either by discharge or dismissal on merit as also to determine that the punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct charged. The reason given for refusal of the present case does not show if this aspect of the matter was kept in mind by the Government. This apart we have looked into the proceeding file and it appears to us that the assistance made available to the petitioner in the depart­mental enquiry was by way of allowing him to be assisted by one Shri S. Oza who was said to be an assistant of the N. B. Section who was described as counsel for the workman. Shri Sarma states that Shri Oza did not really render any assistance to the petitioner. From The report o the Enquiry Officer it is sought to be brought home to us that the Enquiry Officer was not fully unbiased inasmuch as one Borthakur who was examined as a witness in the case was forced to make confessional statement when he was faced with stark realities and barrage of question from the presenting officer and the Enquiry Officer. This would show that the Enquiry Officer tad not act very fairly according to Shri Sarma. This would show that the Enquiry Officer tad not act very fairly according to Shri Sarma. The proceeding file further shows that the petitioner was put many questions by the Enquiry Officer which amounted to cross-examination of the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer as per the learned counsel. 4. In view of all the above we are of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner relating to the conduct of the enquiry is such which merits examination by an independent mind. The present was therefore a fit case where reference ought to have been made. On the strength of recent decision in Telco's case (supra). M. P. Irrigation Karmachari Sangh vs. State of M. P., AIR 1985 SC 860 and Sushil Borkotoki vs. Coal India Ltd., 1988 (2) GLJ 321 it is prayed by Shri Sarma that the Central Government may be directed to make reference under section 10 of the Act instead of merely asking it to reconsider the question of making reference. Though ordinarily in the case of the present nature a direction is given to re-consider the question of refusal of reference as was done in Ram Avtar's case, best keeping in view the fact tr-at the petitioner was dismissed as early as in 1977 and that he has made out a prima facie case for reference we have thought it fit to issue a mandamus to the Central Government to make the reference to the appropriate adjudicating authority. The reference shall be made within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order by the respondents. 5. For the reasons aforesaid the Rule is made absolute by allowing the petition.