Mukul Mudgal, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners case is that they joined the services of the respondent No. 1, Airport Authority of India, and performed duties to the satisfaction of the respondents. It is stated by the petitioners that they were not: paid the minimum wages as notified by the Central Government, The petitioners demanded the wages as per the notification of the Central Government. Instead of acceding to their request the management, respondent No. 1 had removed them from service on 19th December, 1996. As the removal was without assigning any reason, the petitioners moved the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Before the Labour Commissioner the respondent denied all the charges including the relationship of employment employee between them. Thereafter the impugned order was passed by the Central Government on 29th January, 1998 refusing to refer the dispute between the parties for adjudication. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 29th January, 1998 passed by respondent No. 4 refusing the reference of the dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. The impugned order gives the following reasons for refusing to make a reference : "it is reported that the workmen in respect of whom the dispute was raised were not engaged by the management of Airport Authority of India. " ( 3 ) IT is clear that this order delves into the merits of the dispute which is not permissible in law. The very question involved in the dispute was the existence of relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and respondent No. 1. The Government has purported to adjudicate this very dispute which obviously was not within its domain while considering whether or not to refer the dispute or adjudication. This position of law is well settled in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon le Supreme Court in a judgment reported as Ram Avatar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. , (1985) 3 SCC 189 , wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "therefore the view that while exercising power under Section 10 (1) the function performed by the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function is beyond the pale of controversy. v. State of Haryana and Ors. , (1985) 3 SCC 189 , wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "therefore the view that while exercising power under Section 10 (1) the function performed by the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function is beyond the pale of controversy. Now if the Government performs an administrative act while either making or refusing to make a reference under Section 10 (1), it cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of lis. That would certainly be in. excess of the power conferred by Section 10. Section 10 requires the appropriate Government to be satisfied, that the industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. This may permit the appropriate Government to determine prima facie whether an industrial dispute exists or claim frivolous or bogus or put forth extraneous and relevant reasons not for justice or industrial peace and harmony. Every administrative determination must be based on ground relevant and germane to the exercise of power. If the administrative determination is based on the relevant, extraneous or grounds not germane to the exercise of power, it is liable to be questioned in exercise of the power of judicial review. " ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner had also relied upon the following judgments in support of plea that it was not open to the respondent No. 1 to delve into the merits of the matter and for the said proposition she has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court, reported as V. Veerarajan and Others v. Government of Tamilnadu and Others, (1987) 1 SCC 479 ; Ram Avtar Sharma and Others v. State of Haryana and Another, (1985) 3 SCC 189 and Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another v. State of Bihar and Others, (1989) 3 SCC 271 . In Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another v. State of Bihar and Others, (supra) it has been held as follows: "it is true that in considering the question of making a reference under Section 10 (1), the Government is entitled to form an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exists or is apprehended", as urged by Mr. Shanti Bhushan. Shanti Bhushan. The formation of opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exists or is apprehended" is not the same thing as to adjudicate the dispute itself on its merits. In the instant case, as already stated, the dispute is as to whether the convoy drivers are employees or workmen of TELCO, that is to say, whether there is relationship of employer and employees between TELCO and the convoy drivers. In considering the question whether a reference should be made or not, the Deputy Labour Commissioner and/or the Government have held that the convoy drivers are not workmen and, accordingly, no reference can be made. Thus, the dispute has been decided by the Government which is, undoubtedly, not permissible. " ( 5 ) IT has also been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in paras 13 and 14 of the abovesaid judgment: "it is now well settled that, while exercising power under Section 10 (1) of the Act, the function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function, and that in performing this administrative function the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and make upon itself the determination of the lis, which would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by Section 10 of the Act. Applying the principle laid down by this Court in the above decisions, there can be no doubt that the Government was not justified in deciding the dispute. Where, as in the instant case, the dispute is whether the persons raising the dispute are workmen or not, the same cannot be decided by the Government in exercise of its administrative function under Section 10 (1) of the Act. As has been held in M. P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh case, there may be exceptional cases in which the State Government may, on a proper examination of the demand, come to a conclusion that the demands are either perverse or frivolous and do not merit a reference. Further, the Government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand with a view to declining reference and Courts will always be vigilant whenever the Government attempts to usurp the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication of valid disputes, and that to allow the Government to do so would be to render Section 10 and Section 12 (5) of the Act nugatory. " ( 6 ) THE Hon ble Supreme Court also held that in the facts and circumstances of the case since the State Government had already been given a chance to reconsider the matter the State Government should be directed to make a reference. The Supreme Court observed as follows: "after having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and having given our best consideration in the matter, we are of the view that the dispute should be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal and, as the Government has persistently declined to make a reference under Section 10 (1) of the Act, we think we should direct the Government to make such a reference. In several instances this Court had to direct the Government to make a reference under Section 10 (1) when the Government had declined to make such a reference and this Court was of the view that such a reference should have been made. See Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (1983) 1 SCC 304 ; Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 189 ; M. P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. State of M. P. , (1985) 2 SCC 103 ; Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984 Supp. SCC 407. "( 7 ) THE other judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are to the same effect. Insofar as the learned Counsel for the respondent is concerned, he has relied upon the judgment in case State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan, reported as AIR 1960 SC 1223 . In paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "now, in dealing with such a question relating to a public utility service considerations prescribed by the second proviso to Section 10 (1) may be relevant and Government may be justified in refusing to make a reference if it is satisfied that the notice given is frivolous or vexatious or that reference would be inexpedient. "the Hon ble Supreme Court has also held as follows : "though considerations of expediency cannot be excluded when Government considers whether or not it should exercise its power to make a reference it would not be open to the Government to introduce and rely upon wholly irrelevant or extraneous considerations under the guise of expediency. "the Hon ble Supreme Court has also held as follows : "though considerations of expediency cannot be excluded when Government considers whether or not it should exercise its power to make a reference it would not be open to the Government to introduce and rely upon wholly irrelevant or extraneous considerations under the guise of expediency. " "but even in dealing with the question as to whether it would be expedient or not to make the reference Government must not act in a puntitive spirit but must consider the question fairly and reasonably and take into account only relevant facts and circumstances. In exercising its power under Section 10 (1) it would not be legitimate for the Government for instance to say that it does not like the appearance, behaviour or manner of the secretary of the union, or even that it disapproves of the political affiliation of the union, which has sponsored the dispute. "the above position, therefore, does not support the respondent No. 1 and in fact supports the petitioners case. While going into the merits of the matter the Government has taken into consideration facts which are irrelevant for considering the question of reference. None of the circumstances enumerated by the Hon le Supreme Court for sustaining a refusal to refer the dispute are present in this case. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 also relied upon M/s. Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa and Others, reported as AIR 1975 SC 2226 where the Government of Orissa at the instance of the workmen referred to adjudication a dispute as to whether the workman of the contractor were entitled to bonus and the quantum thereof and the contractor made an application to the Government seeking to make the company as a party to the reference and seeking an additional reference by addition of a clause to the reference in the following terms : "if bonus is payable who is responsible for payment of bonus to the workmen". The Hon le Supreme Court held : "the Executive have to reach their decisions by taking into account relevant considerations. They should not refuse to consider relevant matter nor should take into account wholly irrelevant or extraneous consideration. They should not misdirect themselves on a point of law. Only such a decision will be lawful. The Courts have power to see that the Executive acts lawfully. They should not refuse to consider relevant matter nor should take into account wholly irrelevant or extraneous consideration. They should not misdirect themselves on a point of law. Only such a decision will be lawful. The Courts have power to see that the Executive acts lawfully. It is no answer to the exercise of that power to say that the Executive acted bona fide nor that they have bestowed painstaking consideration. They cannot avoid scrutiny by Courts by failing to give reasons. If they give reasons and they are not good reasons the Court can direct them to reconsider the matter in the light of relevant matters, though the propriety, adequacy or satisfactory character of those reasons may not be open to Judicial scrutiny. Even if the Executive considers it inexpedient to exercise their powers they should state their reasons and there must be material to show that they have considered all the relevant facts. " ( 9 ) I fail to see how the above statement of law comes to the aid of the respondent No. 1. In fact it is in favour of the petitioner. Clearly the reasons for refusal given in the impugned order go into the domain of the Industrial Tribunal in adjudication and are thus not facts which are relevant to sustain the refusal to refer the dispute for adjudication. ( 10 ) IN view of the above position of law and the fact that the petitioners are out of employment since 1996, the respondent No. 1 is directed to make a reference to the appropriate Forum/court within three months from the date of receipt of this order. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.