JUDGMENT - MOHTA V.A., J.:—Heard parties. We uphold the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is, under Rule 636(1)(a) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, entertainable by a Single Judge and not by the Division Bench. 2. By this petition is challenged the order of the Government dated 8-3-1990 passed under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949 (I.D. Act) refusing to make a reference on the ground that the four disputed demands raised were vague/pertained to managerial function.. Under sub-clause (iv) of Rule 636(1)(a), applications under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters arising substantially within Greater Bombay out of “the orders passed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948” shall be heard and disposed of by a Single Judge. 3. Is decision of the Government refusing to make a reference under section 12(5) an “order” passed under the I.D. Act, is the question. Section 12(5) deals with discretionary powers of the appropriate Government to make or refuse to make a reference relating to an industrial dispute. A mandatory duty is cast on the Government to record and so also to communicate its reasons in case it refuses to make a reference. This refusal order is open for judicial review on grounds like— (a) failure to record reasons and to communicate them; (b) reasons being not germane to the dispute or tantamount to adjudication; (c) ignoring the Conciliation Officer's report submitting under section 12(4); and (d) mala fide. Thus, some element of adjudication on merits — albeit prima facie — does exist in such an order. Considering the object of the Rules and the use of the simple expression “order” in the relevant part of the Rule, non-restrictive meaning will have to be given to the said expression. Such a decision; therefore, clearly has all the trappings of an order under the I.D. Act, as contemplated by the Rules. Therefore, this petition is entertainable by a Single Judge and not by a Division Bench. 4. Reliance was placed by the petitioners on the decision of this Court in the case of (Vasantdada Dugdh Vyavasaik Vikaszilla Sahakari Sangh Maryadit and another v. The Commissioner, Dairy Development and ors.)1, 1991 Mh.L.J. 734. The ratio of that decision does not apply to the instant matter. It pertains to Rule 18(12) of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules. Reliance was placed by the petitioners on the decision of this Court in the case of (Vasantdada Dugdh Vyavasaik Vikaszilla Sahakari Sangh Maryadit and another v. The Commissioner, Dairy Development and ors.)1, 1991 Mh.L.J. 734. The ratio of that decision does not apply to the instant matter. It pertains to Rule 18(12) of the Bombay High Court, Appellate Side Rules. In that writ petition, a circular issued by the Government and the letter issued by the Dairy Development Commissioner under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, were challenged on the Appellate Side of this Court. Under Rule 18(12) (as newly amended) of the Appellate Side Rules challenge by a writ petition to a decision given in proceedings in respect of the dispute under the said Act is entertainable by a Single Judge. By amendment, the words “under section 91” were omitted. It was held that Rule 18(12) is attracted only when there are following three elements: (i) A dispute under the Act; (ii) proceedings in respect of that dispute, and (iii) decision given in such proceedings. In that context, it was held that the validity of the circular and/or the letter cannot fall in that category and, therefore, the writ petition was entertainable by a Division Bench and not by a Single Judge. Any observation about adjudicative nature of proceedings made in that decision will have to be seen in the whole context. Hence, we order that this writ petition be placed before the appropriate Single Judge for hearing disposal. Order accordingly. -----