K. M. THAKER, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Shah learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Mandavia learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 2. ( 2 ) RULE. Ms. Mandavia learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 2. ( 3 ) MR. Shah learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for leave to delete respondent No. 3 and 4. Ms. Mandavia learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has no objection. ( 4 ) HENCE, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are permitted to be deleted. The amendment to be carried out forthwith. With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal today. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has challenged award dated 11. 3. 2008 passed by the appropriate government whereby the appropriate government has declined to make order of reference in connection with the disputes raised by present petitioner. ( 6 ) MR. Shah learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the dispute raised by the petitioner is about illegal retrenchment/termination of his service. The appropriate Government has declined to make order of reference on the ground of delay inasmuch as the petitioner appears to have approached appropriate Government with request for reference after almost 17 years from the alleged date of termination. Since the appropriate Government declined to make order of reference on the said ground, the petitioner has approached this court challenging the said order on the ground that it is not within the scope of appropriate Government to enter into the merits of the dispute or its maintainability and the appropriate Government cannot decline to make order of reference on the ground on which, industrial Tribunal/labour court is competent to pass an order after considering the relevant material. ( 7 ) MS. Mandavia learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that subject order is legal and proper. When the dispute is raised belatedly and that too after delay of almost 17 years from the date when the alleged dispute arose, the order declining reference cannot be faulted and appropriate Government is justified in denying to make order of reference after such a long delay. 1 and 2 submitted that subject order is legal and proper. When the dispute is raised belatedly and that too after delay of almost 17 years from the date when the alleged dispute arose, the order declining reference cannot be faulted and appropriate Government is justified in denying to make order of reference after such a long delay. ( 8 ) AT this stage a reference needs to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in case between Telco Convoy drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another v. State of Bihar and ors reported in AIR 1989 SC 1565 and more particularly the observations made at paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 which reads thus: "13. Attractive though the contention is, we regret, we are unable to accept the same. It is now well settled that, while exercising power 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 lis, which would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by Section 10 of the Act. See Ram Avtar Sharma v. State of haryana, (1985) 3 SCR 686 : ( AIR 1985 sc 915 ) ; M. P. Irrigation Karamchari sangh v. State of M. P. , (1985) 2 SCR 1019 : ( AIR 1985 SC 860 ) ; Shambu Nath goyal v. Bank of Baroda, Jullundur, (1978) 2 SCR 793 : ( AIR 1978 SC 1088 ). 14. Applying the principle laid down by this Court in the above decisions, 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 persons raising the dispute are workmen or not, the same cannot be decided by the government in exercise of its administrative function under Section 10 (1) of the Act. As has been held in M. P. Irrigation Karamchari sangh's case (supra), there may be exceptionl cases in which the State government may, on a proper examination of the demand, come to a conclusion that the demands are either perverse or frivolous and do not merit a reference. As has been held in M. P. Irrigation Karamchari sangh's case (supra), there may be exceptionl cases in which the State government may, on a proper examination of the demand, come to a conclusion that the demands are either perverse or frivolous and do not merit a reference. Further, the government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand with a view to declining referenceand Courts will always be vigilant whenever the government attempts to usurp the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication of the valid disputes, and that to allow the Government to do so would be to render Section 10 and section 12 (5) of the Act nugatory. " ( 9 ) IT has been held by the Hon'ble supreme Court that appropriate government cannot go into the merits of the dispute or about the legality or justifiability or maintainability of dispute since the decisions on such issue are within the ambit and jurisdiction of competent industrial Tribunal or labour Court as the case may be. The dispute may be treated as a dead dispute after lapse of long time and such delay may be considered as sufficient to not to adjudicate the dispute, however the jurisdiction and Authority to arrive at such conclusion is with Tribunal or labour court. Further, the explanation of the worker as regards the reason for delay also has to be considered before any dispute is considered as dead or non-existent dispute and such adjudication cannot be undertaken by the appropriate Government, since it would be within jurisdiction of the industrial Tribunal or labour Court. Under the circumstances the impugned order is not sustainable as the appropriate Government has transgressed its Authority. The appropriate Government needs to take appropriate decision in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. ( 10 ) HENCE the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the appropriate Government with the direction to take appropriate decision after taking into consideration the law laid down by the apex Court in subject matter. ( 11 ) WITH the aforesaid clarifications and directions the petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost. Rule made absolute.