JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By the impugned order dated 7.10.2005 the State Government had refused to refer the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner on the ground that the demands raised by the petitioner union is not valid and the workers’ union is not competent to raise this dispute. 3. The impugned order dated 7.10.2005 is as under : ÞÁs"kd] lfpo] Je vuqHkkx&1 mŸkj Ánsk kklu] iks0 ck0 220 dkuiqj Ásf"kr ea=h fj;ku b.Vj uskuy Ldwy deZpkjh la?k Árki Hkou] uks,Mk xkSre cq) uxj la[;k @& @ kk[kk lfpoky; lh0ch0&04@2003 uks,Mk fj;ku b.Vj uskuy Ldwy LdwyA fo"k; % vkS|ksfxd fookn la[;k&Mh&46] lsDVj&39] uks,Mk m0Á0 rFkk muds Jfedksa ds chp mRiUu vkS|ksfxd fookn ÁkFkhZ dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr fookn dks ljdkj ls vfHkfu.kZ; gsrq vuqi;qDr le>k gSA vr,o ;g fookn nkf[ky nQ~rj dj fn;k x;k gSA dkj.k % ekaxks dk vukSfpR;iw.kZ gksuk rFkk Jfed la?k ds ckn ÁLrqr djus esa v{ke gksus ds QyLo:iA g0 viBuh; mi Jek;qDr m0Á0 Ñrs foks"k lfpoAÞ 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that respondent No. 4 is a private educational institution and not an industry , hence no industrial dispute can be raised under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is settled that in an Educational Institution the teachers may not fall within the ambit of definition of workman as given in Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but class III and IV employees are workmen. Even if the petitioner wants to raise this objection he could do so before the Labour Court to whom the reference may be made. 5. In my opinion, the Conciliation Officer could not adjudicate upon the dispute as to whether demands by the workmen are justified or not and whether the union was competent to raise the dispute or the workman himself individually are mixed questions of facts and law. These can be decided only on basis of evidence which may be adduced by the parties. 6. Reference order is based on subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government. Such subjective satisfaction relating to factual existence of dispute or its apprehension and expediency of making reference is not justifiable as the appropriate Government has no power or judicial review. The order of reference is only an administrative function. 6. Reference order is based on subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government. Such subjective satisfaction relating to factual existence of dispute or its apprehension and expediency of making reference is not justifiable as the appropriate Government has no power or judicial review. The order of reference is only an administrative function. The authority for making a reference to Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate Government is derived from the key used in Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. Once the conciliation proceeding is moved for settlement of any dispute then such dispute prima facie comes into existence and is apprehended. An administrative order of refusal to refer a dispute cannot destroy or destruct the right of an aggrieved party to establish before the Labour Court that what has been referred in fact is an industrial dispute. After existence of dispute the appropriate Government can only prima facie has to satisfy that what is being referred is not a frivolous or stale dispute and it cannot be permitted to delve into merits of any industrial dispute raised by the aggrieved party. All these questions can be decided by the Labour Court. The petitioner may raise all these questions before the Labour Court for adjudication. 7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.10.2005 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the matter of reference afresh within 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 8. No order as to costs. ————