JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.2.87 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 799/1986. 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal briefly stated are that the present appellant employee Mahadeo Prasad Garg applied to the State of Rajasthan for making a reference to the appropriate Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court under the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This application was rejected by the State Government on the ground that no dispute exists. The petitioner, thereafter, made a further representation requesting the State Government to reconsider the question of making reference and on rejection of that representation in October 85 filed the above mentioned Writ Petition on 21st of December 85. By the impugned order the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, rejected the petition merely on the ground of laches, observing that there being no provision for making such second representation after the Government refuses to make a reference, the making of reference was unnecessary and the petitioner is, therefore, guilty of laches. This judgment and order is impugned in this appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant submitted that the judgment impugned is unsustainable in law as it is the established view of this Court that the State Government has no jurisdiction or authority to dismiss the application for making reference and it is for ascertaining the existence of dispute that the matter is referred to the State. Making a reference on existence of a dispute is a legal duty. Reliance was placed by him on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Amarchand v. State of Rajasthan rendered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 476/94 and another judgment given in Bal Kishan Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. rendered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 80/1990 decided on October 31, 1995 . It was also contended by the learned counsel, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court that the State Government is bound in law to make a reference on its finding prima-facie existence of a dispute between the parties. rendered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 80/1990 decided on October 31, 1995 . It was also contended by the learned counsel, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court that the State Government is bound in law to make a reference on its finding prima-facie existence of a dispute between the parties. In the present case, it has been observed by the learned Judge as under:It is true that the Government should not have taken upon Itself the decision about the correctness of the order of the disciplinary authority and it would have been proper if a reference had been made. 4. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that even the representation was made in view of the decision of this Court that the Government is not powerless to reconsider its decision, if so requested by way of a representation. He, therefore, contended that though there is no statutory provision for making such a reference, making of one such representation cannot invite the blot of being guilty of laches in the manner attributed to the petitioner by the learned Single Judge. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and having scrutinised the judgments on which reliance have been placed by the learned counsel, we are of the view that in such circumstances, the petitioner who is an employee; cannot be denied a legal remedy on the ground of laches alone. The making of representation, without specific statutory provision for the same, may not be correct but was not an error which can be called laches so as to disentitle the employee of the only remedy available to him. 6. The Hon'ble Single Judge should have, therefore, decided the petition on merits. However, no fruitful purpose will be served by reminding the matter to the learned Single Judge as serious loss would be caused to the petitioner by the of lux of time. 7. It is the consistent view of this Court that the Government considering existence of dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is required to consider only prima-facie existence of dispute and is not entitled to adjudicate on the merits of the dispute. 7. It is the consistent view of this Court that the Government considering existence of dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is required to consider only prima-facie existence of dispute and is not entitled to adjudicate on the merits of the dispute. On a careful scrutiny of the case law on the subject a Division Bench of this Court has held in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 80/90 that the power of the State Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to refuse to make a reference for adjudication of a dispute is restricted to finding out the existence of prima-facie dispute between the employer and employee. Once such dispute is found to be existing, the State Government is bound in law to make a reference to the Industrial Court or Labour Court as the case may be. 8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The writ petition of the petitioner appellant is also allowed and the Government is directed to make a reference to the appropriate Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court as the case may be on the application made by the petitioner-appellant under Section 10 of the Act.Appeal allowed. *******