ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 25.8.2003 (Annexure 8). By this the Central Government has refused to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, on the ground that the claim of appointment of the dependent of the deceased has been raised after nine years of the death of the employee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no delay. The concerned employee died on 4.7.1993. The dependent Dhaneshwar Beldar claimed employment, vide letter dated 8.9.1993, which was rejected on 21.9.1993, on the ground that he was minor. After attaining majority, Dhaneshwar Beldar again made an application on 17.5.2000 for his employment, which was again rejected on 26.3.2001. The dispute was raised on 27.11.2002. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no delay. The judgment dated 16.11.1995 rendered in CWJC No. 1960 of 1995(R) is relied on. 4. It appears, from the said judgment that the learned Judge has found that compassionate appointment after a long delay is not likely to serve the desired object. However, on the question whether the Central Government or this Court should go into the merits of the claim or not, on the basis of the judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC 1565 , Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh v. State of Bihar, the order refusing to make reference was set aside and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. 5. In the present case admittedly the claim of Dhaneshwar Beldar was rejected as far back as on 21.9.1993 on the ground that he was minor at that time. He re- agitated his claim after attaining majority. 6. Under Section 10, read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Government is required to form an opinion on considering the report of the Conciliation Officer and should be satisfied that the dispute deserves reference. The Central Government is not required to act mechanically and as a Post Office. 6. Under Section 10, read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Government is required to form an opinion on considering the report of the Conciliation Officer and should be satisfied that the dispute deserves reference. The Central Government is not required to act mechanically and as a Post Office. In the judgment reported in 2004 (1) JCR 341 (Jhr) : 2003(3) JLJR 641 , Colliery Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India, I had occasion to deal with the scope of Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act in the light of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Telco Convoy Drivers case (supra) and other judgments, i.e., (2002) 4 SCC 490 , Sharad Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 2 SCC 455, Nedungadi Bank Limited v. K.P. Madhavankutty, (2000) 3 SCC 93 , Secretary, Indian Tea Association v. Ajit Kumar Barat. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the judgment in the case of Colliery Karamchari Sangh (supra) has been approved in LPA No. 543 of 2003 on 2.11.2003. 7. In view of the legal position emerging from the said judgments of Honble Supreme Court, it is difficult to follow the aforesaid judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In Telco Convoy Drivers case (supra) also the Supreme Court observed that on proper examination of demand the Central Government can come to a conclusion that the demands are frivolous, do not merit a reference and the dispute is not valid. No straight jacket formula has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court under which the Central Government is required to form its opinion. In the cases of telco Convoy Driver and Sharad Kumars case (supra) the Central Government entered into the merits of the dispute. In the cases of Nedungadi Bank (supra) Honble Supreme Court has held that stale claims could not be subject matter of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. In the case of Secretary, Indian Tea Association (supra) the Honble Supreme Court held that the order under Section 10 is an administrative order and that the Central Government would not be justified in making reference without satisfying itself on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice. 9. In the case of Secretary, Indian Tea Association (supra) the Honble Supreme Court held that the order under Section 10 is an administrative order and that the Central Government would not be justified in making reference without satisfying itself on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice. 9. After considering the entire matter, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Government acted within its jurisdiction in refusing to refer the matter for adjudication to the Industrial Court/Tribunal and that the Government has not decided the dispute on merit. Only the circumstances, under which the dispute did not deserve reference, has been recorded in the order impugned. It is nobodys interest to I indulge in such litigation. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.