V. K. SHUKLA, J. State Bank of India, Karamchari Sangh through its General Secretary has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 30-6-2000 passed by Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi refusing to refer the matter before Central Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. 2. Brief facts relied upon for adjudicating present writ petition is that petitioner is "trade union" registered under Trade Union Act. Said trade Union represent members of State Bank India Karamchari Sangh and is operating in different branches of State Bank of India. Said union in the present case espousing the case of one Vijay Kumar who is alleged to have been appointed as permanent part time sweeper on 26-12-1977 at Navin Market Branch of State Bank of India, Kanpur. Earlier he was getting 1/3rd salary and it was raised to 1/2 with effect from 16-10-1981. Subsequently it was enhanced to 3/4th w. e. f. 1-1-1985. Thereafter Branch Manager of the State Bank of India wrote letter to Regional Manager to give him full time wages a workload has increased. This was refused. As concerned workman had been doing work on whole time basis, he claimed that he is entitled for full wages based on bipartite settlement which regulates the increase of wages of part time workman as per para 4. 5 of the settlement in case workman worked for more than 29 hours in a week he was entitle for full scale wages as this benefit was not being extended then industrial dispute was raised by Vijay Kumar. 3. Secretary Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide notification dated 15-12-1993 referred the said dispute for adjudication to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. Terms of reference was as follows : "whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Kanpur in refusing full wages to Sri Vijay Kumar Sweeper-cum-Farash, is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?" 4. Tribunal registered aforementioned dispute as I. D. No. 112 of 1993 and after due contest award was passed in favour of petitioner, holding concerned workman had worked for more than 29 hours in a week and he was legally entitled to get full wages from the date of reference. Said award has been made on 15-4-1997. Tribunal registered aforementioned dispute as I. D. No. 112 of 1993 and after due contest award was passed in favour of petitioner, holding concerned workman had worked for more than 29 hours in a week and he was legally entitled to get full wages from the date of reference. Said award has been made on 15-4-1997. Branch Manger of Navin Market, Branch of State Bank of India issued memorandum dated 10/11-3-1998 to the effect that Vijay Kumar is to perform duty only for 18 hours in a week and stated therein that appointment shall continue on 1/2 of the scale of the sweeper. Feeling aggrieved against the said action of the manager industrial dispute has been sought to be raised before Regional/assistant Labour Commission, Central, Kanpur for violation of Section 9-A item No. 4 and others read with Section 2 (ra) of I. D. Act, 1947. Complaing was also made that on 13-6-1998 that letter has been written asking him not put signature on the attendance register at the time of his arrival and departure in the Bank so that actual working hours could not be claimed or checked. After said complaint being made by petitioner as narrated in Annexure-3 objection had been filed to the same by the Bank. Conciliation Officer proceeded with the matter but same failed and conciliation officer submitted his failure of conciliation report on 31-1-2000. Therefore, after receiving the failure report of conciliation officer, communication has been sent by Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and therein it has been contended that prima facie the same Ministry does not consider the dispute fit for adjudication for following reasons : "in the present case the sweeping area of the Branch is as much as to the entitlement of half scale of wages and accordingly 18 hours in a week was fixed according to bank policy for appointment of sweeper at any branch. " 5. Sri Kshetresh Chander Shukla, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Singh, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of Union of India. 6. " 5. Sri Kshetresh Chander Shukla, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Singh, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of Union of India. 6. Sri Kshetresh Chander Shukla, Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the present case Central Government has totally failed to exercise power of reference vested in it and on totally unjustifiable and irrelevant ground which was not at all the issue involved, power of refusal has been exercised without there being any law full material in support of the same. 7. Sri Ramesh Singh, Advocate on the other hand contended that Central Government has rightly exercised its power as such no interference shall be made in the present case. 8. In order to appreciate contention which has been raised on behalf of parties. 9. Power of Central Government to refer the dispute is being quoted below: "section 10. 7. Sri Ramesh Singh, Advocate on the other hand contended that Central Government has rightly exercised its power as such no interference shall be made in the present case. 8. In order to appreciate contention which has been raised on behalf of parties. 9. Power of Central Government to refer the dispute is being quoted below: "section 10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.- (1)[where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing]- (a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or (b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or (c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the second schedule to a labour Court for adjudication; or (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to the dispute whether it relates to any matter specified in the second schedule or the third schedule to a tribunal for adjudication : Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the third schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a labour Court under Clause (c)] : Provided further that where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be in expedient so to do make a reference under this sub-section notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced : [provided also that where the dispute in relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be competent for that Government to refer the dispute to a labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government. ] 10. Bare perusal of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 would go to show that Central Government has been vested with the authority not only to refer the existing industrial dispute but even apprehended industrial dispute can be referred. ] 10. Bare perusal of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 would go to show that Central Government has been vested with the authority not only to refer the existing industrial dispute but even apprehended industrial dispute can be referred. In the present case order passed by the Central Government does not advert itself to the grievance of the petitioner in its correct perspective inasmuch as grievance of the petitioner had been to the effect that award had been passed in favour of the workman to the effect that having worked for more than 29 hours in a week, he was legally entitled to get full wages from the date of reference. After said award had been made in favour of the petitioner working hours had been reduced, which was earlier assigned to the petitioner and thus, entitlement of petitioner determined by the labour Court qua working hours was being refused. Petitioner had specifically complained to the effect that by means of letter dated 13-6-1998 send by Branch Manager to workman asking him not to put correct working hours which has been actual done and still doing and still doing continuously long time. Grievance of the petitioner had been precisely to the effect that he had been asked not to put signature on attendance register at the time of his arrival and departure in the bank so that actual working hours could not be claimed. In pith and substance grievance of the workmen was to the effect that award which has already been made in favour of the workman declaring his entitlement that having worked more than 29 hours in a week he was to get full wages same was sought to be circumvented by asking the workmen to sign on attendance register below aforementioned prescribed period. Order refusing reference shows that at no point of time any attempt or endeavour has been made by the Central Government to see that all these aspects of the matter had been adverted to. Merely by mentioning that it is in tune with the policy framed by the bank, reference has been refused. Grievance of the workman qua as employer has not at all been appreciated, considered and adverted to in its correct perspective and as such order refusing to make reference on the fact of it appears to be unsustainable. 11. Merely by mentioning that it is in tune with the policy framed by the bank, reference has been refused. Grievance of the workman qua as employer has not at all been appreciated, considered and adverted to in its correct perspective and as such order refusing to make reference on the fact of it appears to be unsustainable. 11. In the case of M. P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v. State of M. P. and another, reported in 1985 (50) FLR 423, and in the case of Ram Avtar Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and another, reported in 1985 (51) FLR 71, Honble apex Court has considered the power of reference and therein it has been held that Central Government has got no authority or jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and in case there is difference on the issues then matter has to be referred to appropriate Government. 12. Central Government has authority to refer the dispute. If there is an industrial dispute then the same has to be referred to the labour Court/industrial tribunal but Central Government has not authority to decide the same. Here in the present case, a bare perusal of the order would go to show that adjudication has been done, claim of the workman has been rejected on merits. Central Government in the present case has totally overstepped its authority and jurisdiction. Net effect of the same is that adjudication has been done without providing opportunity of hearing to the workman and ignoring the grievance raised by workman. 13. Consequently orders dated 30-6-2000 passed by Union of India refusing to refer the dispute is hereby quashed and set aside. Concerned respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and take appropriate decision on the same in accordance with law within three months form the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. 14. For the reason stated above present writ petition is allowed. No orders as to cost. Petition allowed. .