Brijesh Kumar, C.J.— This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.6.1997 in Civil Rule No. 4439 of 1995. 2. We have heard Mr. LP Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri PC Deka, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 3. It appears that the appellant was appointed in Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd, Dhaligaon, District Kokrajhar, Assam, but later his services were terminated on the ground that he had made a misrepresentation that no one from his family was given employment in the said establishment, whereas in fact other members of his family had already been employed. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, sought the dispute to be referred for adjudication before the Labour Court which request was, however, not accepted by the Central Govt. Against the said order he preferred a writ petition. Ultimately, this Court issued a direction to the Central Govt to reconsider the matter. On reconsideration, the Central Govt referred the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati under the provision of section 10(1) of the Industrial Dilutes Act. The dispute as referred is as follows : “Whether the action of the management of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd, Dhaligaon, PO Bongaigaon District Goalpara is justified in removing from service Shri Samijuddin Ahmed, workman on the ground that the workman has given false information to seek employment against land oustee quota? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?” 4. The Bongaigaon Refinery challenged the reference of dispute for adjudication by filing Civil Rule No. 4439 of 1995. The petition was allowed and reference was quashed. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned Single Judge has gone into the merits of the question referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal and dealt with the facts in some details, making observations short of recording a finding that the employment was obtained by the appellant by misrepresentation. The learned Single Judge also recorded a finding that the notification which was issued for providing employment to one member of the family of ousted was withdrawn on 12.3.1986. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed, that being the position, the question of making a reference to test the validity of termination of the service of the appellant did not arise. Hence, the reference was quashed. 6. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed, that being the position, the question of making a reference to test the validity of termination of the service of the appellant did not arise. Hence, the reference was quashed. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the merit of the reference could not be gone into by the learned Single Judge in the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the services of the appellant has not been terminated on the ground that the notification giving benefit of employment to one member of the family was withdrawn on 12.3.1986. On being enquired, learned counsel for the appellant informed that the appellant was given employment in 1987. As indicated above, it was not the ground of termination of the services of the appellant nor it was subject matter of reference. Therefore, it was not open, in the writ proceeding, to non-suit the appellant on the above ground by quashing the reference made by the Central Govt under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act for being adjudicated upon by the Industrial Tribunal. 7. The main ground on which the reference has been quashed is that the circular was withdrawn on 12.3.1986. It, however, needs no emphasis that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 in such matter is very limited and disputed questions of fact as referred cannot be gone into in such proceeding. 8. If at all, the Court could only examine the question of legality of reference made by the Central Govt to the Industrial Tribunal. No such illegality, procedural or otherwise has been pointed out or found in making the reference. In no case the Court could embark upon an enquiry deciding the rights of the parties. That question was only within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to decide. The Court, therefore, erred in going into the merits of the dispute referred relating to validity of the termination of the workman. 9. Apart from the above, the Court, in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution non-suited the workman also on the ground of withdrawal of the notification providing for benefit of employment to a member of oustee family, which was not the ground of termination of the services of the workman nor a question referred by the Govt for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. This Court had no jurisdiction to go into those questions at all for quashing the reference. The judgment and order under challenge is totally unsustainable under the law and it is liable to be set aside. 10. In view of the discussions above, the appeal is allowed and the order of learned Single Judge is set aside, with cost to the appellant, which we assess at Rs. 2,000.