G. B. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) AN award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 30th of september, 1986, annexed as Annexure-14, has been assailed in this writ application by the Management inter alia on the ground that the disputes referred to by the Government for adjudication were not in existence and accordingly the reference itself was incompetent and the award passed by the tribunal on such a reference was invalid and inoperative. The award has also been challenged on the ground that the State Government while making the reference having formed its opinion on the basis of the conciliation failure report and the said conciliation failure report not having indicated as to the existence of the disputes and, on the other hand, having indicated that the employees abandoned their claim, the opinion formed by the Government must be held to be based on non-existent materials and, therefore, the tribunal passed the award on the basis of an incompetent reference and consequently, the award must be held to be null and void. ( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the award of the Tribunal are that the petitioner is a Co-operative Society and the employees of the petitioner through their Union (opposite party No. 2) submitted a charter of demands and raised industrial disputes before the conciliation machinery. The management as well as the workmen participated before the Conciliation Officer and the statutory notice in form-D was given by the Conciliation Officer on 17-7-1984 fixing the date for conciliation to be 31-7-1984. The conciliation notice indicated that there were three demands, namely (i) payment of wages for 56 days (ii) payment of seven instalments of additional dearness allowance and (iii) promotion of the workers to the post of Assistant Secretary. The said conciliation notice has been annexed as Annexure-1. The Couciliation officer submitted a failure report on 6-9-1984, which has been annexed as annexure-2 and the said failure report categorically indicates that the demands on payment of house rent, medical allowance, revision of pay scales and appointment of Assistant Secretary from amongst the workmen were not pressed by the workmen. The said conciliation notice has been annexed as Annexure-1. The Couciliation officer submitted a failure report on 6-9-1984, which has been annexed as annexure-2 and the said failure report categorically indicates that the demands on payment of house rent, medical allowance, revision of pay scales and appointment of Assistant Secretary from amongst the workmen were not pressed by the workmen. This failure report (Annexure-2) formed the basis of a reference made by the Government under Annexure-5 After the conciliation failure report, the Employees' Union submitted another charter of demands reiterating their earlier demands with some modulation on 30th of january, 1985, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 and those demands were that the workers should be paid their wages for the period of 56 days from 24-10-1983 to 18-12-1983, the workmen should be paid 14 additional dearness allowance with effect from 1-4-1982 and the management and control of the Society be taken over by the Government to save the Society from destruction. The State Government in exercise of its powers conferred in section 12 (5) read with Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act made a reference on 31-5-1985 (Annexure-5 ). The reference made by the government is quoted here in below in extenso :"government of Orissa labour and Employment Department order no. II/1-192/1984-5627/le, Bhubaneswar dated 31st May, 1985. Whereas on a consideration of the report of the Conciliation Officer the State Government are satisfied that an industrial dispute exists between the management of Aska Central Multipurpose Co-operative society Ltd. , Aska and their workmen ; and whereas the said Government consider it expedient to refer for adjudication the matters specified in the Schedule appended hereto which appear to be the matters in dispute : now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (5)of Section 12 read with clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the State government do hereby refer the said matters in dispute to the presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, constituted by notification of the Government of Orissa in the Labour department No. 2140 Lab. dated 2nd April, 1957 read with notification No. 7647/le dated 13-7-1984 for adjudication. SCHEDULE 1. Whether the workmen of Aska Multipurpose Co-operative Society ltd. , Aska are entitled to their wages/salary from 24-10-1983 to 18-12-1983? If so, at what rate ? 2. dated 2nd April, 1957 read with notification No. 7647/le dated 13-7-1984 for adjudication. SCHEDULE 1. Whether the workmen of Aska Multipurpose Co-operative Society ltd. , Aska are entitled to their wages/salary from 24-10-1983 to 18-12-1983? If so, at what rate ? 2. Whether pay/wages of the workmen of Aska Multipurpose Co-operative society Ltd. , Aska needs any revision ? If so, from which date and what should be the details ? 3. Whether the workmen of Aska Multipurpose Co-operative Society ltd. , Aska are entitled to 20% house rent allowance of their wages/salary ? If not what should be the actual quantum of house rent allowance and from which date ? 4. Whether the workmen of Aska Multipurpose Co-operative Society ltd. , Aska are entitled to Medical allowance ? If so, at what rate and from which date ? by order of the Governor b. Agarwal joint Secretary to Government" ( 3 ) THE Tribunal by the impugned award did not consider the dispute contained in item No. 1 of the reference, namely the entitlement of the workmen to their salary for the period from 24-10-1983 to 18-12-1983 as it had already been paid to the workmen. But in respect of the other three items of reference, the Tribunal having passed an award, which has been annexed as annexure-14, the management has filed the present writ application for quashing the said award. ( 4 ) MR. Tripathy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, raises two contentions in assailing the legality of the award : (I) In view of the abandonment of the claims by the workmen in course of the conciliation proceeding in respect of the necessity for revision of their pay scales, entitlement of the workmen to 20% house rent allowance and entitlement of the workmen for medical allowance, which is apparent from the conciliation failure report, dispute never existed in respect of the same when the matter was before the State Government. Since the State Government formed its opinion as to the expediency of making a reference on the basis of the said conciliation failure report and since existence of a dispute is a pre-condition for making a reference, the reference was per se bad in respect of the dispute abandoned by the workmen. Consequently, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass an award in respect of those non-existent disputes. Consequently, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass an award in respect of those non-existent disputes. (II) A bare perusal of the reference (Annexure-5) having indicated that the conciliation failure report under Annexure-2 formed the sole basis for forming the opinion about the existence of disputes and making a reference and the said report having clearly indicated with regard to the abandonment of the claim by the workmen in respect of these items, the opinion formed by the State Government on non-existent materials must be held to be vitiated and consequently, the award of the Tribunal in respect of the said illegal reference cannot be sustained in law. " ( 5 ) MR. Falit appearing for the opposite parties, on the other hand, contends that the object of enacting the Industrial Disputes Act and the provisions contained therein to refer disputes to the Tribunal for settlement being to bring about industries peace, whenever a Government makes a reference to the Tribunal it is to be presumed that there was a genuine industrial dispute between the parties which requires to be resolved by adjudication and in such cases attempt should be made by Courts exercising powers of judicial review to sustain as far as possible the awards passed by the Industrial tribunal instead of picking holes here and there in the awards on trivial points and ultimately frustrating the entire adjudication process by striking down the awards on hyper-technical grounds and the petitioner having not raited the objection before the Tribunal on the ground on which it assails the award, this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in interfering with the same. The rival contentions require a careful examination of the law on the subject and also the materials on record to find out whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be competent for this court to interfere with the award while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The rival contentions require a careful examination of the law on the subject and also the materials on record to find out whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be competent for this court to interfere with the award while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) WHILE there is no dispute with the proposition that the High Court in exercise of its power of superintendence can correct the awards of a tribunal by issuing a writ of certiorari provided there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, and generally speaking, a writ of certiorari is issued only in the event of a flagrant violation of law and consequent grave miscarriage of justice, equally there cannot be any manner of doubt that existence of dispute being a pre-condition for making a reference by the State government, in the absence of such a dispute if a reference is made and tribunal answers the reference by passing an award, such an award must be held to be one a flagrant violation of law causing gross miscarriage for justice and such an award can be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction. If the reference itself is held to be incompetent and it is the reference that clothes the tribunal with jurisdiction, the conclusion of the tribunal on the basis of an incompetent reference is vitiated and cannot be sustained in law. The Supreme Court in the case of Sindhu Resettlement corporation Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat and others, [1968 (16) FLR 307 (SC)] :". . . . . . . . IF no dispute at all was raised by the respondents with the management, and request sent by them to the Government would only be a demand by them and not an industrial dispute between them and their employer. An industrial dispute, as defined, must be a dispute between employers and employers, employers and workmen, and workmen and workmen. A mere demand to a government, without a dispute being raised by the workmen with their employer, cannot become an industrial dispute. An industrial dispute, as defined, must be a dispute between employers and employers, employers and workmen, and workmen and workmen. A mere demand to a government, without a dispute being raised by the workmen with their employer, cannot become an industrial dispute. Consequently, the material before the Tribunal clearly showed that no such industrial dispute as was purported to be referred by the state Government to the tribunal, has even existed between the appellant Corporation and the respondents and the State Government, in making a reference, obviously committed an error in basing its opinion on material which was not relevant to the formation of opinion. The Government had to come to an opinion that an industrial disputes did exist and that opinion could only be formed on the basis that there was a disputes between the appellant and the respondents relating to reinstatement. Such material could not possibly exist when, as early as March and july, 1985, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 respectively had confined their demands to the management to retrenchment compensation only and did not make any demand for reinstatement. On these facts it is clear that the reference made by the government was not competent. The only reference that the government could have made had to be related to payment of retrenchment compensation which was the only subject-matter of dispute between the appellant and the respondents. " ( 7 ) BEARING in mind the principle laid down in the aforesaid case, we would not examine the correctness of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) THE reference made by the State Government which has been annexed as Annexure-5 clearly indicates that the State Government were satisfied that industrial dispute existed between the management of Aska Central Multipurpose co-operative Society Limited and their workmen on considering the report of the Conciliation Officer and further considered it expedient to refer lor adjudication the matters specified in the Schedule and finally made the reference in exercise of their powers under Section 12 (5) read with Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Schedule contained four items of disputes. The conciliation failure report (Annexure-2, clearly revealed that the demands in respect of payment of house rent, medical allowance, revision of pay scales and appointment of Assistant Secretary from amongst the workmen had not been passed. The Schedule contained four items of disputes. The conciliation failure report (Annexure-2, clearly revealed that the demands in respect of payment of house rent, medical allowance, revision of pay scales and appointment of Assistant Secretary from amongst the workmen had not been passed. Even though subsequent to the said conciliation report, the workmen had made a fresh charter of demands, which has been annexed as Annexure-3, even therein no demand had been made in respect of items 2, 3 and 4 of the reference under Annexure 5. The original statutory notice that had been issued by the Conciliation Officer which has been annexed as Annexure-1 clearly reveals also that the demands in respect of items 2, 3 and 4 of the reference had not been made. In that view of the matter, there was no dispute in respect of items 2, 3 and 4 of Annexure-5 and consequently, the reference made in respect of the same was clearly incompetent, invalid and inoperative. The Tribunal having passed an award in respect of those incompetent items of reference, the award in respect of the same must be held to be vitiated and cannot be sustained. Mr. Tripathy's iirst submission accordingly must succeed. ( 9 ) THE second submission of Mr. Tripathy is also of great force. Section 10 (1) ot the industrial Disputes Act clearly indicates that where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended then, it may, at any time by order in writing refer the dispute for adjudication. Section 12 (5) indicates that if on consideration of the report, referred to in sub section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there s a case for reference to a Board or to a Tribunal, then it may make such reference. The satisfaction of the appropriate Government is undoubtedly a subjective satisfaction. The formation of opinion is no doubt a subjective process not lending itself to even a limited scrutiny by the Court, but when such an opinion is formed on the basis that certain facts exist and it is established that the facts never existed or on the existing facts it is impossible for any one to form the opinion, then such an opinion is challenpcable on the ground of total non-application of mind or on the ground that a was formed on collateral ground and was beyond the scope of the statute. This matter was considered by the Supreme Court for the first time in the case of Barium Chemicals Ltd. and another v. Company Law Board and others, [ air 1967 SC 295 ] and was later on followed in the case of Rohtas Industrials ltd. v. S. D. Agarwal and another, [ air 1969 SC 707 j and several other cases. The opinion of the Central Government formed under Section 237 (b) of the companies Act was under challenge and it was held that existence of circumstunces mentioned in Section 237 (b) was the condition precedent to formation of opinion by the Government and existence of circumstances which formel the basis of formation of opinion was open to judicial review. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two cases, and on examining the reference made by the Government under Aunexure-5, we find that the report of the Conciliation Officer alone was considered by the State government for formation of its opinion that industrial disputes exist in respect of the matters referred to in the Schedule. But of the report the coneiliation Officer, annexed as Annexure-2 clearly revealed that the disputes in respect of payment of house rent, medical allowance, revision of pay scales and appointment of Assistant Secretary from amongst the workmen were abandoned and, therefore, no more remained as disputes to clothe the State government with jurisdiction to make a reference in respect of the same. Even the subsequent charter of demands made by the Union under Annexure-3 as well as the original notice under Annexure-1 confirms the aforesaid state of affairs. In that view of the matter, the formation of opinion of the State government under Annexure-5 with regard to the existence of industrial disputes in respect of items 2, 3 and 4 must be held to be an opinion formed on non-existent disputes and accordingly, we would hold that the said opinion had been formed on total non-application of mind and consequently, the reference in respect of items 2, 3, and 4 must be held to be incompetent and the consequent award in respect of such incompetent reference must be held to be per se bad. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Port Shramik Union v. The Calcutta River Transport association and others, [1988 (57) FLR 689 (SC)] on which the learned counsel for the opposite parties made reliance apply with full force where a competent reference had been made by the State Government to the Tribunal and the tribunal passed an award on the same. But if the reference itself is held to be incompetent on the ground that disputes never existed, then an award of the Tribunal on such incompetent reference cannot be sustained and it would certainly not be the duty of the High Court to sustain such an award. The second submission of Mr. Tripathy also accordingly succeeds. ( 10 ) ). In our considered opinion, therefore, even with the limited power of scrutiny this Court has while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, the impugned award under Annexure-14 cannot be sustained. We would accordingly quash the award of the Tribunal under Annexure-14. The writ application accordingly succeeds. A writ of certiorari be issued accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.