JUDGMENT : B.P. Saraf, J.—The petitioner was employed with the Respondent No.2-Bharat Petroleum Corporation as a Cleaner on and from February 7, 1985. The petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 2 vide their letters dated August 21, 1985 and December 26, 1985 that his work was not found to be satisfactory and he was given an opportunity to improve his performance and his services were later terminated by a letter dated February 6, 1986 with immediate effect. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute relating to said termination of his employment. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central 3, Bombay took up the Conciliation proceedings and ultimately submitted a failure report dated October 5, 1987 to the Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. The Ministry of Labour by a letter dated December 31, 1987 informed the respondent No. 2 its decision that not to make a reference of the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal. It was done as the action of the management did not appear to the Government of India, which was the appropriate Government in this case, unjustified. The following extract from the letter dated December 31, 1987, being relevant, are given below: "I am directed to say that it is reported that the services of the workman have been terminated during probationary period on account of his unsatisfactory performance, in accordance with the terms of his employment. It is further reported that the workman was given two opportunities to improve his performance, but he did not show improvement in his work. In view of this, the action of the management does not appear to be unjustified. The Central Government is therefore of the opinion that there are prima facie no grounds for reference of the dispute for adjudication by a Tribunal". From the above, it is clear that the Government of India, in fact, decided the dispute itself and came to a conclusion that the action of the management was justified. This is not permissible in view of the clear pronouncements of the Supreme Court in M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh Vs. State of M.P. and Another, AIR 1985 SC 860 and Ram Avtar Sharma and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (1985) 3 SCC 189 . 2. I have perused the above decisions. This is not permissible in view of the clear pronouncements of the Supreme Court in M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh Vs. State of M.P. and Another, AIR 1985 SC 860 and Ram Avtar Sharma and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (1985) 3 SCC 189 . 2. I have perused the above decisions. In Ram Avtar v. State of Haryana, (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that while exercising power u/s 10(1) the function performed by the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function. It was further held that the Government performs an administrative act u/s 10(1), it cannot deal with the merit of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of list in exercise of the power u/s 10 which requires the appropriate Government to be satisfied that an industrial dispute exists or apprehended. The only power of the Central Government is to determine prima facie whether an industrial dispute exist or not. 3. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the order of the Government refusing to refer the dispute to the Tribunal is not correct The same is, therefore, set aside with a direction to refer the dispute to the Tribunal u/s 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, under the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.