JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, which is an union of the Bank Employees, has challenged the orders Annexure.4 and Annexure.4-A, passed by the Union of India, by which the appropriate Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication. 2. The petitioner Union raised a dispute regarding the termination of the 101 employees of the banks which included peons, clerks and Godown-keepers. Conciliation proceedings were initiated by the Union before the Conciliation officer, who, after hearing both the parties, submitted the failure report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Thereafter the matter was taken to the appropriate Government for referring the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal, but the appropriate Government (Union of India, Department of Labour), vide Annexure.4 dated March 24, 1987, and Annx.4-A dated May 1, 1987, refused to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Both the orders have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that while passing the orders Annexure.4 and Annexure.4-A, the appropriate Government decided the matter on merit of the dispute and has not considered the question whether the dispute exists or not. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, consideration of dispute on merit is foreign to the powers of the Government while considering the case under Section 10(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the State Government. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Under Section 10(1) of the Act, while considering the question of making a reference of a dispute to the Tribunal, the appropriate Government has to form an opinion that whether any industrial dispute exists or apprehended. If the appropriate Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists then it has power to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be in connection with or relevant to the Labour Court for adjudication. The adjudication of the demand of a workman on merit by the appropriate Government will amount to interference in the sphere of the Labour Court by the Government and the Government is not expected to attempt an examination of the demand on merit with a view to decline the reference. The adjudication of the demand of a workman on merit by the appropriate Government will amount to interference in the sphere of the Labour Court by the Government and the Government is not expected to attempt an examination of the demand on merit with a view to decline the reference. Adjudication of the demand of a workman on merit is exclusively within the domain of the Labour Court and the Government has no powers to decide the same though the Government is entitled to prima facie examine the merit of the case and while exercising the power under Section 10 of the Act it has only to determine whether the dispute exists or apprehends and if the Government comes to the conclusion that the dispute exists or apprehended then without deciding it on merit, it has to refer the same for adjudication on merit to the Tribunal. The functions of the two authorities, namely, the appropriate Government and the Labour Court, are demarcated by the Act. With reference to the dispute, the first function that is to be performed by the Government is whether the dispute is to be referred for adjudication or not, and the second function is with respect to the adjudication of the dispute on merit, which is exclusively left to the Labour Court and the Government has no concern with the adjudication. The function of the Government under Section 10(1) of the Act is an administrative function and in performing this function, the Government cannot enter into the merit of the dispute. The decision of a dispute on merit by the Government amounts to usurpation of the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate Government. In the present case, the appropriate Government refused to refer the dispute on the ground that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Head office, has informed the Government that the decision has been taken that all the temporary employees will be given an opportunity for being selected by way of natural recruitment on permanent basis and the bank intends to issue notice with respect to this. The appropriate Government, in the present case, has not applied its mind whether the dispute exists or not and declined to refer the dispute only on the ground that the bank has taken some initiation for giving permanent employment to the temporary workman, whose services have been terminated. The appropriate Government, in the present case, has not applied its mind whether the dispute exists or not and declined to refer the dispute only on the ground that the bank has taken some initiation for giving permanent employment to the temporary workman, whose services have been terminated. This was not the function of the Government under Section 10(1) of the Act. While exercising the power under Section 10(1) of the Act, the Government had only to see whether the dispute-raised existed or not and not to decline to refer the dispute on the ground that as the bank is taking steps for their re-employment hence there is no justification to refer the dispute. Refusal to make a reference on the basis of the opinion of the Government that the bank is taking steps to give re-employment, is irrelevant and not germane for the purpose of deciding as to whether the dispute raised by the workman should be referred for industrial adjudication or not. 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appropriate Government was not Justified In refusing to refer the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication. 7. Lastly, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the similar matter with respect to the Union of other Banks, the Union of India has already made a reference to the Labour Court and, therefore, the Union of India may be directed to refer the dispute in the present case, also. I have considered this submission also. 8. As the orders Annexure.4 and Annexure.4-A are based on grounds Irrelevant, extraneous and not germane to the exercise of the powers and, therefore, instead of directing the Government to make a reference of the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, I think it proper to direct the respondent No. 1 the Union of India to reconsider the case whether any dispute, as raised by the petitioner, exists or not and if the Government, after consideration of the material on record, comes to the conclusion that an Industrial dispute exists, which requires adjudication by the Labour Court, then it may refer the same for adjudication to the Labour Court. But while deciding the question it may be made clear that the Government should not dwell-upon the merit of the case. 9. In the result, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. But while deciding the question it may be made clear that the Government should not dwell-upon the merit of the case. 9. In the result, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is allowed. The orders Annexure.4 and Annexure.4-A, passed by the Union of India, are set-aside and the case is remanded to the Government of India to reconsider the case and to pass an appropriate order as Indicated above, within six months from today.Writ allowed. *******