Honble KACHHER, J. – The petitioner was appointed as a Chainman, by the Additional Collector, and Conversion, Jodhpur (the respondent No. 2), who had the duty to manage the Government land and also to see, whether the land-use was to be converted.The petitioners services having been terminated, he approached the Conciliation Officer, appointed under the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (the Act). No settlement was arrived at and on receipt of the report of the Connciliation Officer, the State Government (the respondent No.1),vide the impugned order dated 12th May, 1993 (Annex.!), declined to make a reference of the dispute, raised by the petitioner, to the Labour Court. Industrial Tribunal, on the ground that the respondent No. 2 was not a `industry. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, has approa- ched this Court by filing this writ petition. (2) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. (3) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that it was not for the State Government to decide, whether the respondent No. 2 was an `industry within the meaning of clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act and that the State Govern- ment ought to have referred this question also to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. (4) Section 10 of the Act makes provision for reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals and Sub-section(1) thereof empowers the State Government to refer a dispute, to the appropriate authority, if it is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. The bare reading of the above- said provision makes it clear that the State Government has to form an opinion as to whether the dispute raised is an industrial one or not and it is only when the dispute raised is an industrial dispute within the meaning of clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act that reference can be made for adjudication, to the proper forum. The petitioner was admittedly employed by the respondent No.2, whose duty is to perform sovereign/Government function of managing the Government land and also to see what use the land can be put to. The petitioner was admittedly employed by the respondent No.2, whose duty is to perform sovereign/Government function of managing the Government land and also to see what use the land can be put to. (5) In these circumstances, if the State Government formed an opinion that the respondent No. 2 is not an `industry and on that basis, has declined to make reference, no case for interference in exercise of the powers, vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is msde out . (6) Consequently, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.