JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of reference dated 4.10.2001 (Annexure 1) issued by respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder purported dispute raised by the concerned workman (respondent No. 1) was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court; and also for quashing the order dated 25.11.2003 passed in Reference Case No. 9 of 2001 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro under which petitioners application for deciding the preliminary issue was rejected. 2. Relevant facts in short are as follows. A complaint was made by one Baru Gorain son of Fakir Gorain before the management that the concerned workman is in fact Sona Ram Teli son of Karu Gorain and also that the name of wife children declared in service records are false and that he got employment by impersonation whereas the complainant was entitled to employment being a displaced person. In the preliminary enquiry held by vigilance department, the complainants allegations were found correct. A departmental proceeding was initiated. In reply to the charge sheet he admitted the charges. He took part in the departmental proceeding. The Enquiry Officer held that the concerned workman got employment by impersonation. Ultimately he was dismissed from service on 28.2.1985. Instead of raising an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act (I.D. Act for short) he chose to file a petition under Section 33A of the I.D. Act for setting aside the said order of dismissal, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 1986. 3. By Award dated 22.1.1991 (Annexure 4), the said Misc. Case No. 6 of 1986, was disposed of holding that the concerned workman was not entitled to any relief. The Labour Court found that in the Reference Case No. 39 of 1973, all the employees of Bokaro Steel Plant, who were on roll of the company on 30.12.1970, were directly or indirectly concerned in the dispute, whereas, the concerned workman was appointed in 1979, much after the reference of the said dispute and therefore he was not at all directly or indirectly concerned with the said pending Reference Case No. 39 of 1973. On the issue, whether the dismissal of the concerned workman was justified or not, the Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was properly held: the concerned workman admitted in reply to the charge-sheet that he was not the real Barn Gorain; and that the concerned workman was guilty of misconduct and false impersonation which is a serious one and therefore, his dismissal was justified. 4. After about nine years the concerned workman challenged the said Award by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 133 of 199 (R) which was disposed of on 28.11.2000 (Annexure 5). The concluding portion of the said order reads as follows: In the facts and circumstances of the case, there being delay of about 8 to 9 years, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. However, the petitioner may raise a dispute under Section 10 of the Act, if permissible. In such case, if any reference is made, the Presding Officer will decide the issues on merit, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the award in question. The writ applications stands disposed of with aforesaid observation. 5. Thereafter an industrial dispute was referred by the State Government by impugned order (Annexure 1) 6. The petitioner filed a petition before the Labour Court for deciding the question of its jurisdiction and res judicata. The Labour Court rejected such preliminary objection, mainly on the ground that in the said order dated 28.11.2000, this Court observed that if reference is made, the Labour Court will decide the issues on merit. Petitioner filed a petition for review, which was also rejected. 7. Relying on National Engineering Industries Ltd. etc.; (2000) 2 SCC 355, Nedugadi Bank Ltd. etc. and (2000) 3 SCC 1993 Sec. Indian Tea Association etc., Mr. Rajiv Ranjan submitted that the reference itself was invalid and illegal. He further relied on , Batuk K. Vyas etc. and submitted that the Labour Court was obliged to decide the complaint under Section 33A of the I.D Act, as if it were a dispute referred to it in accordance with the provisions of I.D. Act and accordingly, the Labour Court adjudicated the complaint of the concerned workman about his dismissal in the earlier Award passed in Misc. Case 6/1986. He also relied on , Walford. Transport Ltd. etc.; 1959 (2) LLJ 515, Trichy- Srirangam Transport Company (Private) Ltd. etc. Case 6/1986. He also relied on , Walford. Transport Ltd. etc.; 1959 (2) LLJ 515, Trichy- Srirangam Transport Company (Private) Ltd. etc. and the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 1987 (1) LLJ 492 , M/s. Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. etc.; and Management of Banglore woolen, cotton, Cotton and Silks Mills Co. Ltd. etc. in support of his contention that the principle of res judicata applies to the industrial dispute. 8. Mr. Jay Lal Gorain, appearing for the concerned workman could not satisfy this Court as to how the impugned reference was legal and valid However, on the question of validity and legality of the preliminary order dated 25.11.2003, relying on 1983 (2) LLJ 425 , D.P. Maleswari etc. he submitted that High Court should not interfere with the orders of Labour Court deciding preliminary issue; and that the writ petition filed by the concerned workman against the earlier Award was not interfered by this Court on the ground of delay and therefore principle of res judicata will not apply to this reference case. He relied on Managing Director, etc. 9. The questions arc (i) whether the order of reference was valid and legal; and (ii) whether the Labour Courts order rejecting preliminary objection is legal and valid. 10. I take up the first issue first. In my opinion, the reference itself was invalid and illegal. 11. On 2.11. 2006, this Court asked the State counsel to show when were the materials before the State Govt. justifying the reference. Mr. Shamim Akhtar appearing for the State with reference to the counter affidavit submitted that in view of the said order of the High Court dated 28.11.2000, the Government opined to refer the matter for adjudication. As per Section 10(1) and Section 12 of the I.D. Act, the appropriate Government is required to consider a full report containing full statement of facts and circumstances and to record its satisfaction that in its opinion the dispute deserves reference. The Government cannot act in a mechanical manner (Please see (supra). 12. In the earlier award passed in Misc. Case 6 of 1986, the Labour Court held inter alia that the departmental proceeding was fair and proper; the concerned workman admitted that he got employment by impersonating the complainant and the order of his dismissal was justified. The Government cannot act in a mechanical manner (Please see (supra). 12. In the earlier award passed in Misc. Case 6 of 1986, the Labour Court held inter alia that the departmental proceeding was fair and proper; the concerned workman admitted that he got employment by impersonating the complainant and the order of his dismissal was justified. That award became final, when it was challenged in the said writ petition but was not interfered by this Court, may be on the ground of delay. There is nothing to show that a full report containing the full statement of facts and circumstances was placed before the Government, and it was considered, before forming an opinion that the dispute deserves reference. It is clear that only on the basis of the aforesaid order of this Court dated: 28.11.2000, the Govt. referred the dispute in mechanical manner. This Court did not direct the Government to refer the dispute. This Court never intended that the Govt. should refer the dispute ignoring provisions of Section 10(1) and 12 of the I.D. Act. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances; and the legal position, noted above, it has to be held that the order of reference dated 4.10.2001 is invalid and illegal. The first issue is decided in negative. In view of this finding, it is not necessary to go into the second issue about the validity of order dated 25.11.2003. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and impugned order of reference is set aside. However there will be no order as to costs.