Judgment :- This Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records and quash the G.O.(D) No. 462, dated 14-06-2002 on the file of the first respondent. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and he is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting readymade garments having its factory situate at Madras Export Processing Zone, Tambaram; that presently there are about 573 employees who are engaged in the respondent Company; that the service conditions of the employees in the petitioner Company are covered by settlement entered into from time to time. 3. The petitioner would further submit that on a sudden rescission in Textile Industry the petitioner had to suffer financial loss and it became worse on account of the employees adopting go slow tactics; that the petitioner put the employees on notice to follow the production schedule; that the employees in June 2001 demanded for increase of wages and they were assured as and when the business improved they would be adequately compensated; that not withstanding the workers adopted "Go slow" tactics, tool down method, gherao, sit in strike, insubordination, sabotage etc., resulting in the management suspending the manufacturing operations from 10-09-2001 to 16-09-2001 and the employees were informed that the period of suspension of operation would not carry wages on principles of "No Work, No Pay". 4. The petitioner further stating that on account of the terrorist attack on U.S. the core business of the petitioner further got affected for lack of export orders and therefore, the suspension was once again resorted to from 2-2-2002 putting the employees on notice in the same old fashion. 5. In these circumstances, the second respondent Union vide their letter dated 4-2-2002 raised Industrial Dispute before the Joint Commissioner (Labour) against the suspension of operation; that the Joint Commissioner who submitted his failure report to the Government resulting in the Government on the said failure report referring the case to the Industrial Dispute vide G.O. (D) No. 462, dated 14-06-2002 and it is this G.O. that the petitioner is seeking to quash by means of the above Writ Petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice on behalf of the respondents was also heard. 7. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice on behalf of the respondents was also heard. 7. On the part of the petitioner the learned counsel would submit a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in GORDON WOODROFFE LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU (1996(1) L.L.N.865), wherein, the Government deciding the issue to be a case of lock out issued a notification asking the Company to restart its operations and the Company challenged those notification of Government by a Writ Petition. This Court held that the terms of reference do not reflect the real issue and the petitioner therein was prejudiced by one sided reference and it would be justified in challenging the frame of the point referred there for determination. 8. That may be suiting to the facts and circumstances in the said case, whereas, in the case in hand it is different. There is a definite dispute in between the petitioner Company and the third respondent Union and the Workers of the petitioner Company in general. 9. A careful perusal of the impugned G.O. (D) No. 462 dated 14-06-2002 would indicate that the Government only in careful consideration of the failure report dated 20-03-2002 sent from the Joint Commissioner (Labour) and in full consideration of the proceeding of the Commissioner (Labour), dated 20-03-2002 has taken the decision to refer the dispute to the Labour Court for the proper enquiry to be held before it and therefore, the Government in the above circumstances is left with no choice but to refer the dispute to the Labour Court by means of the G.O. Impugned herein. 10. Moreover, it is always desirable to decide any dispute of such nature on a fair hearing by the Competent Court of law, the Labour Court herein and even the Government cannot choose to decline to refer the case to the Labour Court in such circumstances when it is quite warranted as it is the case in hand. 11. The Supreme Court in such matters wherein the Government had declined reference of the subject matter to the Labour Court has decried in its judgments observing that the Government by not making the reference cannot decide the subject on its own and therefore, in such cases it is only desirable to refer the matter to the Labour Court for proper enquiry and decision. 12. 12. For all the above discussions held, there is no pith or substance in the case of the petitioner coming forward to seek the relief of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the G.O. and the first respondent/the Government is justified in all respects in referring the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent to the Labour Court/the second respondent for proper enquiry and its award and therefore, the interference of this Court sought to be made into the reference made under the impugned G.O. s neither necessary nor warranted in the circumstances of the case. In result, the above Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No. 35159 of 2002 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.