Judgment :- Nainar Sundaram, J.: This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in, W.P.No.669 of 1982. The petitioner-Union in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents herein. For convenience sake, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner-Union raised an industrial dispute complaining of ousting, by the second respondent, of the petitioner-Union’ members, who, according to the petitioner-Union, were only employees of the second respondent, though employed through the contractor, third-respondent. There was a conciliation over the industrial dispute and the same having ended in failure, the matter went before the first respondent and by the order impugned the writ petition, the first respondent declined to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication. In view of the controversy raised in the writ appeal, we feel obliged to extract the body the order of the first respondent, impugned in the writ petition, as follows: “The Government have examined the conciliation report of the Labour Officer first read above in regard to industrial dispute raised by Seshasayee Paper Mill Labour Union against the management of Seshasayee Paper Mill and Boards Limited, Pallipalayam, Salem District over the issue of non-employment of-110 contract workers and they pass the following Orders: It is reported that there is no employer-employee relationship between these workers and the Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited, Erode, since they were all employed by contractor. It is also reported that the contractor could not run the business due to ill and closed down the business after due notice and offering closure compensation to the workers. Hence the Government consider that there is no case to refer the issue in dispute for adjudication.” 3. Before the learned single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, it was contended that the first respondent has practically adjudicated dispute on merits and that is not permissible as per the pronouncements of the highest in the land. The learned single Judge, adverted to certain factual aspects, such as the respondent having been a licensed contractor, and a settlement having been arrived between the third respondent and the workers; and ultimately in substance, the learned single Judge also held that there was no relationship of employer and employees between the second respondent and the members of the petitioner-Union. The learned single Judge, adverted to certain factual aspects, such as the respondent having been a licensed contractor, and a settlement having been arrived between the third respondent and the workers; and ultimately in substance, the learned single Judge also held that there was no relationship of employer and employees between the second respondent and the members of the petitioner-Union. Thus, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition and this has obliged the petitioner to prefer this appeal. 4. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner-Union, would submit that the respondent ought not to have gone into the merits of the case and rendered a finding there is no relationship of employer and employees between the second respondent and members of the petitioner-Union, and that is a question that could appropriately be gone only by the industrial adjudicatory forum and the learned single Judge also ought not to gone into this question and rendered a position finding over the same. As against Mr.B.R.Dolia, learned counsel for the second respondent, would submit that the records exposed before the Conciliation Officer and consequently before the first respondent did out, without any ambiguity, the position that there was no relationship of employer employees between the second respondent and the members of the petitioner-Union and members of the petitioner-Union were only employees under third respondent, who licensed contractor under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 37 of hereinafter referred to as the Act, and further the second respondent itself has registered establishment under the Act. 5. The principles with reference to the scope of exercise of power of the Government to or not to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication are well settled. It has countenanced by pronouncements, even at the level of the highest court in the land, that Government, while doing this process, is not supposed to delve into the merits of the and indulge in any adjudicatory power. When we peruse the order of the first respondent, impugned in the Writ Petition, we find that there is a categoric expression of opinion there is no employer and employee relationship between the workers, the members petitioner-Union and the second respondent, since the said workers were all employed by contractor. We could not construe this expression of opinion as anything short adjudication of the question. We could not construe this expression of opinion as anything short adjudication of the question. In Telco Convey Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar, 1989 S.C. 1565, it has been countenanced that: "It is now well-settled that, while exercising power under Sec.10(1) of the Act, the function of the appropriate Government is an Administrative function and not a judicial or judicial function, and that in performing this administrative function the Government delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis, would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by Sec.10 of the Act." We also feel obliged to refer to the following statement in Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, (1985)1 L.L.J. 519 : "There may be exceptional cases in which the State Government may, on proper examination of the demand, come to a conclusion that the demands are either perverse or frivolous do not merit a reference." In the present case, we could not have a second opinion as to the result of what the respondent did. What the first respondent did by the order impugned in the Writ Petition comes within the adjudicatory sphere which is not permissible for the first respondent not want to go further and express any opinion on the issue and it is for the first respondent to consider the question of making or not making a reference taking note of the principles well laid down by pronouncements of Courts, including those of the highest in the land, should govern the scope of the exercise of such power. Since there is an omission on the of the first respondent to do so, or in other words, the first respondent having treated the adjudicatory sphere, we are obliged to remit the matter back to the first respondent reconsideration of the question and a fresh disposal of the same. The parties can place whatever material they could command throwing light on the question and that will have consideration at the. hands of the first respondent. But, at the same time, the respondent must be wary not to commit the same mistakes, as did happen here, which alone obliged us to interfere in writ powers. The parties can place whatever material they could command throwing light on the question and that will have consideration at the. hands of the first respondent. But, at the same time, the respondent must be wary not to commit the same mistakes, as did happen here, which alone obliged us to interfere in writ powers. For all the above reasons, we are not able to support the order of the learned single Judge, who has also given an opinion that there is relationship of employer and employees between the second respondent and the members the petitioner/Union. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed; the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.669 of 1982 is set aside and that writ petition will stand allowed and matter will stand remitted to the file of the first respondent for a fresh consideration disposal in the light of the observations made above. No costs. The matter is sufficiently and it deserves expeditious disposal at the hands of the first respondent. respondent will do the reconsideration and take the decision afresh within a period weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. B.S. ----- Appeal allowed.