Judgment N.K. Jain, J.-It is alleged that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as Conductor on November 16, 1985 and was removed vide order dated June 19, 1986. He submitted a complaint Under Section 12 of the I.D. Act, 1947 on September 2, 1994. Replyto the complaint was filed on September 13, 1994 against which the petitioner filed counter reply on October, 1994 ultimately the conciliation officer gave his failure report vide letter dt. November 11, 1994. The respondents refused to make reference vide order dt. August 25, 1995 while forwarding a copy of the same to the Conciliation Officer. Hence, this writ petition. 2. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents No. 1 & 2 are bound to make a reference but the respondents No. l & 2 refused to make the reference vide order dt. August 25, 1995 on the ground of delay, charges of corruption against the petitioner and further that the petitioner workman did not complete 240 days in one calender year which is not permissible as the respondents have no right to refuse to make the reference. He has relied on Amar Chand vs. State; and Bal Kishan vs. Union of India (1990-I-LLJ-262)(Raj), Ramesh Chand vs. U.O.I., and Sri Ganganagar Sugar Mills vs. Slate decided on February 26, 1993. 3. Mr. Bhati has not disputed the letter dated August 25, 1995 and settled legal position but he submits that the appropriate Government can refuse if the claim made is frivolous and belated. He submits that the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the case law. He also submits that if reference is made for adjudication the Tribunal/Labour Court will also consider the delay factor. He has relied on Bombay Union of Journalists vs. State of Bombay (1964-I-LLJ-351) (SC). 4. I haveheard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the case law cited at Bar. 5. Undoubtedly, power of the appropriate Government to make reference or not is purely administrative in nature and not judicial or quasi-judicial and while considering the failure report, the appropriate Government is entitled to go into the prima facie merit to see whether incumbent is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act and to form opinion as to factual existence of any dispute without adjudicating the dispute itself on merit. However, for refusal communication of reasons is necessary. It is also true that if the claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated the appropriate Government may refuse to make reference and there is no bar for not making reference. But each case depends upon the facts of its own. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner has not placed the order of appointment and has not said in the entire writ petition when he was terminated. However, from the documents placed on record it is clear that he was appointed on daily wages basis as Conductor on November 16, 1985 and on June 20, 1986 his services were terminated. For the first time the petitioner made a complaint on September 2, 1994 for conciliation against alleged illegal termination of his services. The appropriate Government has observed that the petitioner was found involved in corrupt practices and he did not complete 240 days in one calendar year and while refusing to make reference it has observed that the petitioner has raised dispute after abnormal delay of 6 years without explaining the same. It is no doubt true that the appropriate Government should not go into the merits of the case which is not necessary or uncalled for but at the same time when the claim of the petitioner is hopelessly belated without there being any explanation of delay, the appropriate Government may decline to make reference. Undoubtedly, there is no time limit prescribed for making a complaint but delay plays important role if not explained and termed as laches and fatal. More so, on the basis of delay a reference can be rejected in view of the Supreme Court decision rendered in Bombay Union of Journalists vs. State of Bombay (supra) wherein it has been held as under - pp 354-355. “But it would not be possible to accept the plea that the appropriate Government is precluded from considering even prima facie the merits of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) or not. It the claim made is patently frivolous, or is clearly belated, the appropriate Government may refuse to make a reference.” 7. In the instance case admittedly the petitioner has made complaint for the first time after about 6 years. It the claim made is patently frivolous, or is clearly belated, the appropriate Government may refuse to make a reference.” 7. In the instance case admittedly the petitioner has made complaint for the first time after about 6 years. Therefore, only on the basis of some observations on merit refusal of reference cannot be set aside whereas in view of the Supreme Court decision in Bombay Union of Journalists ‘s case (supra) wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court have also expressed the view that at the time of dealing the question whether industrial dispute exists or not or whether a reference should be made, prima facie examination of the merits cannot be said to be foreign to the enquiry which the appropriate Government is entitled to make while considering the case and may look into the merits of the case also and discretion is of the appropriate Government. Of course, which is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously and in case of refusal reasons must be assigned. Therefore, on the basis of observations made by the appropriate Government while refusing to make reference, the impugned order cannot be set aside. 8. Sofar as the argument that the matter should have been referred subject to delay to the Tribunal/Labour Court, and appropriate forum could have considered the delay part, is also not sustainable in the facts of the case as it will not serve any purpose to consider the delay again when the petitioner has not been able to explain the delay while the matter was pending and delay has not been condoned. This Court will not set aside the discretion so exercised when the discretion exercised cannot be said to be arbitrary or without jurisdiction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any illegality in refusing to make reference so as to call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction. So far as the cases cited by the Counsel for the petitioner are concerned they are not helpful to the petitioner. In view of this, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the direction as prayed for cannot be issued. Accordingly, the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.