SHARAD D. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) ). BY way of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 21/8/2000 (Annexure-C) denying to make Industrial Reference on the ground that No work no pay. Hence there is no question of payment for absconding period. As documents submitted by the management during the proceedings, it is clear that the workman was put on light job. Hence no dispute. ( 2 ) AS per the say of the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 is a General Secretary of Paschim Railway Karmachari Parishad, a Trade Union registered vide Registration No. 25 of 1965 and affiliated to Bhartiya Railway Mazdoor Sangh (BRMS), and BAMS having several branches on the Western Railway and representing the problems and grievances of the railway employees before the appropriate forum. The petitioner No. 2 is Khalasi and working on the Bhavnagar region of the Western Railway under the control of the respondent NO. 2. On account of some grievances, the petitioner No. 1 raised a dispute and the same was forwarded to the respective respondents. On receipt of strike notice, the Assistant Commissioner (C), Adipur, started conciliation proceedings and submitted failure report to the Desk Officer - respondent No. 5 ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that the conciliation officer has gone into the merits of the dispute and has decided and adjudicated the dispute. He has further argued that the Government has no authority to go into the merits of the matter and adjudicate the dispute. It is for the Industrial Tribunal to decide the dispute and not the respondent No. 1. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. , delivered in Civil Appeal No. 2534 of 1989, decided on April 28, 1989. In the said decision the Honble Apex Court has held as under;-"13. ATTRACTIVE though the contention is, we regret, we are unable to accept the same. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. , delivered in Civil Appeal No. 2534 of 1989, decided on April 28, 1989. In the said decision the Honble Apex Court has held as under;-"13. ATTRACTIVE though the contention is, we regret, we are unable to accept the same. It is now settled law, while exercising powers 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 take upon itself the determination of the list, which would certainly be en excess of the power conferred on it by Sec. 10 of the Act. (See Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of Haryana 1985 (3) SCC 189 , M. P. Irrigation Karmachari Sangh V. State of M. P. , 1985 II CLR 10, Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, Jullundur, 1978 (2) SCC 353 . " ( 5 ) LEARNED Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government, Mr. Sameer Dave for the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and Mrs. Vasudatta Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent NO. 2 argued that different view has been taken by the Court on the controversy involved in the petition and hence appropriate order may be passed. ( 6 ) APPLYING the principle laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the above decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 person raising the dispute is workman or not, the same can be not be decided by the Government in exercise of its administrative function under Section 10 (1) of the Act. ( 7 ) I am, therefore, of the view that the State Government, which is the appropriate government, was not justified in adjudicating the dispute and accordingly the impugned order cannot sustain. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, I direct the State government to make a reference under Sec. 10 (1) of the Act of the dispute raised by the petitioner to an appropriate Industrial Tribunal within a period of THREE MONTHS from the date of receipt of writ of this order. ( 9 ) THE petition is allowed and the impugned order dtd. ( 9 ) THE petition is allowed and the impugned order dtd. 28/1/2000 (Annexure-C to the petition) is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. .