This petition has been preferred by Workmen of Haroocharai Tea Estate represented by General Secretary, Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha, Dibrugarh invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Govt. refusing to refer a dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The relevant order passed by the Govt. vide Memo No. GLR 261/ 93/19-A dated the 3rd November, 1994 reads as follows : "I am directed to refer to the letters quoted above, and to say that there appears no dispute upon the matter. As such, party concerned may be intimated from your end accordingly." It may be placed on record that Baijnath Tewari was a driver of the respondent No. 4 and had been serving in the tea estate for the last five years honestly and diligently. The workman enjoyed all the benefits to which a workman is entitled to and there has been no allegation against his conduct during his tenure of service as driver. But the respondent No.4, all on a sudden did not allow the workman to join his duty with effect from 1.9.92. 2. The matter was referred by the Association to the State Govt. for referring the dispute to the competent authority under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The State Govt. vide order dated 3rd November, 1994 informed that there appears to be no dispute in this matter and refused to refer the matter to the appropriate authority. Having been dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of refusal by the Govt., the petitioner-Association filed this writ petition. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and going through the documents annexed with the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the State Govt. while refusing to refer that matter to the appropriate authority as per section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has violated the provisions incorporated in sub-section (5) of section 12 of the Act. For better appreciation, the provisions in sub-section (5) of section 12 of the Act are reproduced below : "(5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate Govt. is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, (Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal), it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Govt. is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, (Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal), it may make such reference. Where the appropriate Govt. does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefor". It is clear from the above provision that where the State Govt. does not make such a reference, it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons thereof. 5. In the instant case, it is apparent from the impugned order that no reason has been cited by the Govt. as to why the dispute has not been considered for referring to the appropriate authority. It is pertinent to mention here that the State has also not filed any counter in this case. Thus situated, this Court has to act on the averments made in the writ petition. From paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the writ petition, it is evident that Shri Baijnath Tewari was working in the tea estate and he had served under the employer respondent No. 4 for a period of five years with all sincerity and honesty and enjoyed all the benefits to which a workman is entitled to. While in service, the respondent No. 4 suddenly snapped his service with effect from 1.9.92 and he was not allowed to join his duty. That being the position, and on consideration of the fact that no reason has been cited by the State Govt. in refusing to refer the matter to the appropriate authority under section 10 of the Act, this Court has option but to direct the State Govt. to refer the matter to the appropriate authority under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 within a period of one month from the date of which the copy of the judgment is served by the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed.