( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against an order dated 9th December, 199] passed by a learned Judge of this court during the pendency of the writ application filed on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. It appears that a grievance has been made on behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent that his services have been illegally terminated by the appellant - Steel Authority of India Limited. ( 2 ) THE learned Judge by the impugned order, has directed the respondent-authorities to refer the dispute relating to the illegal termination of the petitioner's service before the appropriate tribunal within the time fixed in the said order. ( 3 ) IN view of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) if the appropriate government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may refer such dispute to any court or tribunal, for adjudication. It has been pointed out in several judgments by the Supreme Court that this power has to be exercised by the appropriate government in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of the Act and before making such reference the appropriate government must be satisfied that an industrial dispute exists within the meaning of the Act. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1953 SC page 53 (The State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy and Anr.) and AIR 1978 SC page 1088 (Shambu Nath Goyel v. Bank of Baroda ). In these very judgments it has been pointed out that such an order of reference should not be examined by the court very closely to see whether there was any material before the government to support its conclusion. Although the aforesaid judgments are not very relevant to the question with which we are concerned because here the learned trial, Judge has directed the respondents to refer the dispute to the appropriate tribunal without examining the question whether any industrial dispute exists within the meaning of the Act. It may be pointed out that in the present case neither the appropriate government had any occasion to examine that question nor the court itself had examined that aspect of the matter. It may be pointed out that in the present case neither the appropriate government had any occasion to examine that question nor the court itself had examined that aspect of the matter. ( 4 ) DURING the hearing of the application for interim relief learned counsel appearing for both the parties agreed that the appeal itself be treated as on day's list for hearing and be disposed of along with the application for interim relief. Accordingly, we treat the appeal as on day's list for hearing and dispose of the same along with the application for interim relief with the following directions: (A) In view of the fact that neither the appropriate government nor the learned Judge has examined the question whether any industrial dispute exists which is to be adjudicated by the tribunal, the order under appeal dated 9th December, 1991 is set aside. (B) The learned Judge should hear both the parties and if he is satisfied that it is a fit case where a direction should be given to the appropriate Government to exercise its power in terms of section 10 of the Act aforesaid, then the learned Judge shall, pass appropriate order in accordance with law. (C) In view of the fact that the Steel Authority of India Limited - the appellant shall be deemed to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, we make it clear that it will be open to the learned Judge to dispose of the application on merit itself at an early date convenient to the learned Judge. (D) In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. ( 5 ) LET xerox copies of the order be made available to the learned advocates appearing for the parties on usual undertaking. Application and appeal disposed of.