Hrishikesh Roy, J.;- Heard Mr. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner(s). Also heard Mr. P. C. Deka, learned senior counsel representing respondent No. 5 (Workman). Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned Government Advocate rep­resents the official respondents. 2. In this case the management of Nonaipara Tea Garden challenges the refer­ence made by the Government under the In­dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter re­ferred to as "the Act"). They also challenge the report of the Labour and Conciliation Officer by contending the same to be an in­complete report. The order dated 24.7.2006 (Annexure-XI to the writ petition) directing maintenance of status quo on the room allot­ted to the workman at the time of his em­ployment is also under challenge in the in­stant proceeding. RELEVANT FACTS 3. The respondent workman was ap­pointed on 18.12.2002 as a learner/appren­tice in the Nonaipara Tea Garden on tempo­rary basis by order dated 18.12.2002 and his engagement was continued from time to time. The dispute in the instant case arose out of a complaint that the workman embezzled of sum of Rs.2410/- from the wages of the temporary workman of the garden. 3.1. A show cause notice dated 5.9.2005 was served in response to which, the work­man in his reply dated 10.9.2005, admitted that only a sum of Rs.2000/- was taken by him from the payment table and he requested that he be pardoned as the incident is the first of its kind for him. 3.2. However, on the very next day i.e. 16.9.2005, the workman wrote to the Labour Officer stating that he was forced to submit the resignation letter on 15.9.2005 and in the said communication, the workman requested that the management be directed to re-ap­point him in service. 3.3. The Labour Officer thereafter initi­ated a process of tripartite discussion with the management and the workman and in the meeting held on 7.12.2005 in the office cham­ber of the Labour Officer, the workman again admitted the charge that he had taken money for his personal use from the weekly wages of the temporary workers. The workman also indicated in the said meeting that he is going to request the management for mercy and for his re-employment in the Tea Estate. 3.4. The workman also indicated in the said meeting that he is going to request the management for mercy and for his re-employment in the Tea Estate. 3.4. Eventually the matter was taken up by the Labour Officer and it is revealed from the minutes of the meeting dated 29.6.2006 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) that ami­cable settlement could not be reached and accordingly it was decided to refer the dispute for adjudication. 3.5. But the earlier proceeding dated 7.12.2005 in the Labour Officer's chamber was not referred to in this report and it is con­tend to be incomplete report which is not in-conformity with the provisions of Section 12 (4) of the Act. 3.6. It appears that a second report dated 25.7.2006 (Annexure-B of the counter affi­davit of the workman) was also sent to the Government purportedly under the provisions of Section 12(4) of the Act. The second re­port dated 25.7.2006, unlike the first report (21.7.2006) was not marked to the manage­ment or the workman and in this report the Conciliation Officer also stated the terms of reference, which is to be framed by the Gov­ernment. 3.7. Thereafter the Government in pur­ported exercise of powers under Section 10 (1) (c) referred the following dispute for ad­judication by the Labour Court: - " 1. Whether the Management of Nonaipara Tea Estate P. O. Panerihat, District Udalguri, B. T. A. D (Assam) is justified to force Sri Nakul Patowari, learner of the Garden to tender resig­nation or not? 2. If not, is he entitled for reinstatement with back wages and other benefit or any other relief in lieu thereof." 4. On behalf of the management it is ar­gued by Mr. K. Goswami, learned counsel that the Government while making the refer­ence had exercised its powers mechanically without referring to the relevant materials and the dispute that was eventually referred was not the real issue and was only a consequen­tial issue arising out of the embezzlement of worker's money by the workman, his admis­sion and his resignation. 4.1. K. Goswami, learned counsel that the Government while making the refer­ence had exercised its powers mechanically without referring to the relevant materials and the dispute that was eventually referred was not the real issue and was only a consequen­tial issue arising out of the embezzlement of worker's money by the workman, his admis­sion and his resignation. 4.1. Referring specifically to the referred dispute, the learned counsel contend that what was meant to be in the realm of adjudication i.e. whether the management forced the work­man to resign, was decided and incorporated by the Conciliation Officer in his report and thereby he transgressed into the domain of Referring Authority i.e. the Government and accordingly the reference made mechanically by the Government as per the incorporation of the Conciliation Officer is not tenable in law. 4.2. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the workman had admitted his guilt before the Labour Officer during the dis­cussion held on 7.12.2005 in the office cham­ber of the said officer and under such circum­stances, there cannot be any basis for the workman to contend that the management forced him to resign and that he was also forced to admit his guilt and therefore the reference on this aspect has to be treated frivolous. 4.3. It is also argued on behalf of the management that the discretion to make reference cannot be mechanically exercised on the basis of 2 incomplete and irreconcilable reports given by the Conciliation Officer and under such circumstances, the impugned ref­erence cannot be sustained in law as the ex­ercise of reference power cannot be made contrary to the statutory prescription and the Government can't abdicate its discretion by mechanically accepting the Conciliation Officer's decision. 5. Defending the reference, it is argued by Mr. P. C. Deka, learned senior counsel that the workman on the very next day reported that he was forced to resign on 15.9.2005 and under such circumstances, the resigna­tion of the workman can not be assumed to be voluntary and this has to be considered as a relevant factor, for framing the reference under the provision of Section 10 of the Act. 5.1. 5.1. The learned counsel further submits that even assuming that the reference is not properly framed, later during the adjudica­tion process, the necessary correction can always be made as the Labour Court is com­petent to lift the veil to determine the real issue amongst the parties. Accordingly the learned counsel submits that there may not be any necessity for this Court to intervene at this stage of the proceeding. 6. On reading of the relevant provision of the Act I find that Section 10 of the Act en­ables the appropriate Government if it is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists, to refer the dispute or any matter connected with the same to a Labour Court for adjudication. Section specifies the duty of the Conciliation Officer. In the event of an existing or appre­hended industrial dispute, the Conciliation Officer is required to take steps for settle­ment of disputes. But if no settlement is ar­rived at, the Conciliation Officer is required under Section 12 (4) of the Act to send to the appropriate Government, a full report on the steps taken by him for settlement of the dis­pute together with full statement of such facts and circumstances relevant to the disputes. Under sub-section 5 the appropriate Gov­ernment upon consideration of the report of the Conciliation Officer, is empowered to make reference of the dispute for adjudica­tion by the Industrial Court. 7. Having examined the scope and ambit of the statutory provisions, it is apparent that machineries have been set in place for con­ciliation of industrial disputes, reference of such disputes for adjudication and their adjudica­tion. However, adjudication of industrial dis­pute has to be preceded by conciliation and reference. It is also apparent that the power of the reference is given to the Government, whereas the Labour Court has the power to adjudicate on the dispute. The statute also makes it clear that neither the conciliation au­thority nor the Government can transgress into the sphere of adjudication, which is to be dis­charged exclusively by an Industrial Court. 8. Having regard of the above statutory prescription, if the issues in the present case is considered, it is apparent that a complete picture of the dispute was not given by the Conciliation Officer in either of his two re­ports. 8. Having regard of the above statutory prescription, if the issues in the present case is considered, it is apparent that a complete picture of the dispute was not given by the Conciliation Officer in either of his two re­ports. The vital fact of admission of guilt by the workman during the discussion on 7.12.2005 in the Conciliation Officer's cham­ber is not reflected in the reports dated 29.6.2006 and 25.7.2006. That apart, in the second report dated 25.7.2006, the issues to be referred were also framed by the Conciliation Officer whereas the Act does not clothe the Conciliation Of­ficer with any power to frame the issues to be referred by the Government. 8.1. Additionally the issue involved in both the reports have been described differently by the officer. In the first report of the Con­ciliation Officer dated 29.6.2006 the issue in dispute is recorded as: - "Schedule-A:- Issue of dispute:- Alleged harrasment to Sri Nakul Patowary by way of forcing him to tender resignation by the man­agement of Nonaipara Tea Estate, P. O. Panerihat, Dist. Udalguri, B. T. A. D (Assam)" But in the second report dated 25.7.2006, the Conciliation Officer formulated the issues differently which was mechanically accepted by the Government while making the im­pugned reference under Section 10 of the Act. 9. Considering the different understand­ing of the very same Conciliation Officer in his two reports dated 26.9.2006 and 25.7.2006 of the issue involved, it is apparent that the authorities have lost sight of the real issue between the parties. It further ap­pears that while framing the issues the Con­ciliation Officer unilaterally assumed that force was applied on the workman to tender his resignation, whereas the said facts could only be decided through adjudication and not at the stage of the references or conciliation ex­ercise. 10. It is also found that the Conciliation Officer had not furnished a full and complete report as contemplated under Section 12 (4) of the Act and under such circumstances, the impugned report dated 29.6.2006 as well as the later report dated 25.7.2006 of the Con­ciliation Officer, cannot be construed to be a report under Section 12(4) of the Act. 10. It is also found that the Conciliation Officer had not furnished a full and complete report as contemplated under Section 12 (4) of the Act and under such circumstances, the impugned report dated 29.6.2006 as well as the later report dated 25.7.2006 of the Con­ciliation Officer, cannot be construed to be a report under Section 12(4) of the Act. Since the terms of reference indicates that the same was not formulated by a process of indepen­dent exercise of the discretion vested on the Government but in a mechanical manner by reproducing the formulation made by the Conciliation Officer without referring to the real dispute, the said reference is declared to be incorrectly made, as it did not reflect the real dispute between the parties. 11. Having reached the above conclusion, I am of the opinion that this writ petition de­served to be allowed by quashing the im­pugned reference made by the Conciliation Officer as well as the reference made by the Government in exercise of powers under Sec­tion 10 (1) (c) of the Act. It is ordered ac­cordingly. 12. Consequently the Conciliation Officer is now directed to furnish a complete report as envisaged under Section 12(4) of the Act by incorporating therein, the admission of the workman in the discussion held on 7.12.2005 in the office chamber of the Labour Officer. After a complete report and other relevant materials are made available to the Govern­ment, the Government would then pass or­ders as contemplated under Section 10 read with Section 12 (5) of the Act. 13. That takes us to the challenge made to the status quo order passed by the Labour Officer on 24.7.2006 (Annexure-XI) on the strength of which, the workman continues to occupy the room allotted to him by the man­agement during the time of his employment. The workman is no more in service of the Management as it is evident from his various communication including the one made to the Labour Officer on 16.9.2005, where he prayed for his re-appointment. The Status quo order has fettered the management from re­sorting to the provision of Section 630 of the Companies Act 1956 to recover their prop­erty. The workman is no more in service of the Management as it is evident from his various communication including the one made to the Labour Officer on 16.9.2005, where he prayed for his re-appointment. The Status quo order has fettered the management from re­sorting to the provision of Section 630 of the Companies Act 1956 to recover their prop­erty. Therefore, I am of the considered opin­ion that since the workman has not been in service for last several years, there is no jus­tification for continuing with the status quo order which permits him to occupy the room allotted to him by the management during his service tenure. Accordingly, the status quo order dated 24.7.2006 of the Labour Officer stands vacated. 14. The writ petition is disposed in the light of above direction without any order on cost.