JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In the present Writ Application, the petitioner has challenged the order as contained in Annexure-3 whereby, in exercise of the powers under Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Central Government has refused to refer the dispute for adjudication on the ground that the Union filed a case regarding reduction of wages to the workman after lapse of so many years and that the demand of the Union was vague and frivolous and therefore, no Industrial Dispute subsisted for adjudication. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying in the cases of Telco Convoy Drivers' Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1989 SC 1565 and Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in (2001) IILLJ 788 SC has submitted that the Central Government had no jurisdiction at all to enter into the merit of the claim of the Union while refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication. It was further submitted that on the ground of delay also, the reference could not have been refused. 3. From bare perusal of the impugned order refusing to refer the dispute, I find that the Central Government has not gone into the merits of the claim of the Union either one way or the other, rather the refusal was made on the ground of inordinate delay in raising the dispute and that the demand was vague and frivolous and therefore, no Industrial Dispute subsisted for adjudication. 4. In the case of Telco Convoy Drivers' Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. (Supra), as it appears the reference was refused to be referred by holding that the person raising the dispute was not a workman therefore in that case, the Central Government decided the question of relationship of employer and workman and held that person raising the dispute was not workman. But in the present case, no such finding of the Central Government is there and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the case referred hereinabove is not applicable in this case. 5. In the present case, from the impugned order, it appears that the Central Government passed the order refusing to refer the dispute after applying its mind. 5. In the present case, from the impugned order, it appears that the Central Government passed the order refusing to refer the dispute after applying its mind. It is held that since the Union had filed case regarding reduction of wages after so many years and also that the demand was vague and frivolous, in my view, there is no illegality in the order. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed