A. K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL) ( 1 ) PETITIONER was employed by respondent No. 2 - M/s. Ashok Hotel as painter ondaily wage basis w. e. f. 1/05/1971. His services were terminated on 1/02/1978. He raised industrial dispute challenging his termination which was referredfor adjudication to Labour Court IV. Labour Court gave award dated 22/04/1993 holding that termination of petitioner s service were illegal and unjustified andhe was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. Pursuant to this award petitioner was allowed to join the duties on 6/07/1995 as technical Grade-III in the pay scale of Rs. 1,050. 00-1,425. 00. On 20/09/1994petitioner protested against the grant of this pay scale and demanded the payscale of Rs. 1,100. 00-1,640. 00w. e. f. 17/05/1998. In January 1995 he even lodged acomplaint with Labour Commissioner against the Management that it was committingunfair labour practice. It was followed with many representations. Ultimately on 2 1/05/1996, just ten days before the petitioner was to retire from service i. e. on 3 1/05/1996, petitioner filed statement of claim before the Conciliation Officer raisingindustrial dispute claiming the aforesaid pay scale of RS. 1100. 00 1640. 00. Conciliationproceedings ended in failure. Failure report was submitted and ultimately respondentno. 1 passed impugned order dated 22/12/1997 declining to makereference by giving the following reasons:- "workman Shrihari Chand has retired on 31. 5. 96 Undated claim wasreceived in this office in May 1996. Cause of action admittedly arose on17. 5. 78. The Claim which has been filed when the workman is on the vergeof retirement that too 18 years after cause of action arose is hightlybelated and is, therefore, not fit for reference. " ( 2 ) ONE year after the aforesaid rejection, petitioner submitted review petitiondated 1 2/02/1998 requesting respondent no. 1 to review its order dated 22/12/1997. This review was also dismissed by impugned order dated 1/09/1998. Relevant portion of this order reads as under: it is an admitted fact that the workman retired on 31. 5. 96 and has receivedall his retirement benefits. Though the workman did. raise a disputeregarding illegal termination of his services but did not raise the issue ofpromotion assuch. The workman rejoined on 6. 7. 94 and had all the time toraise the dispute but he chose to do on the verge of his retirement, that isbarely 10 days before his superannuation. Even the demand notice wassent on 2. Though the workman did. raise a disputeregarding illegal termination of his services but did not raise the issue ofpromotion assuch. The workman rejoined on 6. 7. 94 and had all the time toraise the dispute but he chose to do on the verge of his retirement, that isbarely 10 days before his superannuation. Even the demand notice wassent on 2. 5. 96. After considering all the facts and circumstances of thecase, I am of the considered opinion that the dispute does not meritadjudication. The review petition does not succeed and the same is, thereby,dismissed. " illegal termination of his services but dismissed. ( 3 ) PETITIONER filed this petition challenging order dated 22/12/1997and 1/09/1998. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid facts show that the reference is mainly rejected on the ground thatthe dispute raised by the petitioner workman was highly belated and the issue ofpay scale/promotion was raised by the petitioner when he was on the verge of hisretirement i. e. barely ten days before his superannuation. Although, pursuant tothe award rendered by the Labour Court holding his termination as illegal he hadrejoinded his duties almost two years ago. ( 5 ) PETITIONER retired from service on 31/05/1996 i. e. almost four years ago. No useful purpose would be served directing the respondent to reconsider thematter or refer the industrial dispute at this belated stage with regard to the payscale/promotion of the petitioner relating to the period when he was in service. Thisis not a fit case where this Court should interfere with the impugned orders inexercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is wellestablished that the function of the is an "appropriate Government" while making orrefusing to make reference discharges administrative function and "apropriategovernment" is to form anopinion that industrial dispute exists or is apprehended,before it makes the reference. In view of the reasons given by the "appropriategovernment" in refusing to make reference, it cannot be said that the "appropriategovernment" acted illegally or committed any material irregularity. It was governedby relevant facts and came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for reference. One can refer to judqment of the apex Court in the case of Secretary, Indian Teaassociation Vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 915 . It was governedby relevant facts and came to the conclusion that it was not a fit case for reference. One can refer to judqment of the apex Court in the case of Secretary, Indian Teaassociation Vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 915 . Inthat case "appropriate Government" refused to make reference on the ground thatthe concerned employee who had raised the dispute was not "workman" within themeaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act. While doing so government considered thesalary and allowances drawn by the employee as well as the nature of workperformed by him including his power to sanction expenses incurred by his Office. The concerned employee (respondent in the aforesaid case) filed writ petitionagainst the Order of the "appropriate Government" refusing to make reference andhigh Court in that writ petition directed the government to make the reference asto whether he was a workman. Appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissedand in these circumstances the appellant prefered Special Leave Petition and thatis how the matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. Grantingthe leave and ultimately allowing the appeal of the appellant, Supreme Court setaside the judgment of the High Court and upheld the order of the Governmentrefusing to make reference. Relying upon its earlier judgment in the case of Stateof Madras Vs. C. P. Sarthy (supra), Prem Kakkar Vs. State of Haryanareported in AIR 1976 SC 1474 and Sultan Singh Vs. State of Haryana reportedin AIR 1996 SC 1007 , the Court observed that the order u/s. 10 of the Act was anadministrative order and the government was entitled to go into the questionwhether industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and it will be only subjectivesatisfaction on the basis of material on records and being an administrative orderno lis is involved. The position in law was summarised as under:- "1. The appropriate Government would not be justified in making areference under S. 10 of the Act without satisfying itself on the facts andcircumstances brought, to its notice that an industrial dispute exists orapprehended and if such a reference is made it is desirable whereverpossible, for the government to indicate the nature of dispute in the orderof reference; 2. The order of the appropriate Government making a reference unders. The order of the appropriate Government making a reference unders. 10 of the Act is anadministrative order and not ajudicial or quasi-judicialone and the Court, therefore, cannot canvass the order of the referenceclosely to see if there was any material before the Government to supportits conclusion, as if it was a judicial or quasi-judicial order; 3. An order made by the appropriate government under S. 10 of the Actbeing an administrative order no lis is involved, as such an order is madeon the subjective satisfaction of the Government; 4. If it appears from the reasons given that the appropriate governmenttook into account any consideration irrelevant or foreign material, thecourt may in agiven case consider the case for a writ of mandamus and: 5. It would however, be open to party to show that what was referred bythe Government was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act. " ( 6 ) JUDGING the present case from this angle, it would be seen that the impugnedorder made by respondent no. 1 is legal and valid. ( 7 ) ON the basis of the facts on record when the dispute was raised belatedly andthat too when the petitioner was at the verge of his retirement the "appropriategovernment" rightly rejected the reference as it could be said that no industrialdispute "exist" and it was not a fit case for reference. Writ petition is accordinglydismissed. Rule stands discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.