JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed that the non-petitioner No. 2 - Special Secretary cum Labour Commissioner be directed to refer the matter of retrenchment of the petitioner for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kota. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on receipt of conciliation proceedings, the State Government examined the matter under Section 10 read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in the preceding calendar year. Therefore, he is not entitled .for protection of Section 25-F of the Act. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that some of the similarly situate matters like the petitioner, where artificial breaks have been given, have been referred to the Industrial Tribunal but the aforesaid fact was not taken into consideration while passing the order of non-reference on 18.1.1990 (Annexure-4). Learned counsel has further submitted that the dispute raised by him was not of violation of Section 25-F only but the same was of Sections 25-G and 25-H also. However, the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondent No. 2. 4. Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has submitted that the State Government while deciding the issue of making reference has every right to consider the material to form opinion whether any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended which is to be referred to the appropriate authority. State Government has rightly come to the conclusion that the workman has not completed 240 days in the last preceding year. With regard to violation of Sections 25-B and 25-H of the Act, counsel for the respondents submits that there was no sufficient material. 5. Mr. N.K. Maloo, appearing for respondent No. 3 Company while supporting the aforesaid submission of counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 has contended that the Government has rightly considered the material on record and has come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for reference. He has further submitted that the Government is not precluded from considering prima facie the merits of dispute and refuse to refer dispute under Section 10. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel. 7. He has further submitted that the Government is not precluded from considering prima facie the merits of dispute and refuse to refer dispute under Section 10. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel. 7. Petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexures-5 and 6 where the State Government has made reference on some workers wherein issue of violation of Section 25-F is involved. The petitioner is claiming parity with the said references. As regards application of Sections 25-G and 25-H, it is settled position of law that for violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H there is no mandatory retirement of fulfilling the condition of service of 240 days in the last preceding calendar year but sufficiency of material even for Sections 25-G and 25-H is to be seen by the Government while considering the issue of reference under Section 10 whether any industrial dispute exists or not. 8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner be granted another opportunity to submit a representation along with detailed facts to the Government and on receipt of the same, Government will reconsider and decide the issue of reference afresh within period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy along with representation.The writ petition is disposed of.Writ petition disposed of. *******