JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner was engaged as daily rated Beldar in the month of June, 1993. He was retrenched on 31.5.1998. He raised a demand notice to Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Shimla on 2.8.2004. The Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer sent failure report to respondent No.4. Thereafter, respondent No.4 has issued the impugned order on 15.11.2006 whereby he has refused to refer the matter to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. 2. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood has strenuously argued that respondent No.4 discharges only the administrative duties and he could not adjudicate upon the matter. In other words, his submission is that whether the workman has completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment could only be gone into by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal after permitting the parties to lead their evidence. He then argued that the question of completion of 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months is not sine qua non when the persons junior to the workman are retained. 3. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tarlok Jamwal have supported the order dated 15.11.2006. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has raised the demand notice on 2.8.2004. Respondent No.4 has exceeded his authority by refusing to refer the matter to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal. The fact whether the workman has completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment can only be gone into by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal after permitting the parties to lead their evidence in support of their respective cases. 6. Case of the petitioner is also that the persons junior to him have been retained. It is well settled under the industrial jurisprudence that it is not necessary that the workman should complete 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months preceding his retrenchment to get benefit under Sections 25 (G) and (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the instant case, respondent No.4 has adjudicated the matter by holding that since the workman has not completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months, there is no justification of making reference to the Labour Court. The Labour Commissioner only discharges the administrative functions and not judicial or quasi judicial functions. 7. In the instant case, respondent No.4 has adjudicated the matter by holding that since the workman has not completed 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months, there is no justification of making reference to the Labour Court. The Labour Commissioner only discharges the administrative functions and not judicial or quasi judicial functions. 7. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others, (2009) 11 SCC 609 have culled out the following principles (para-37):- "Thus it can safely be concluded that a writ of mandamus would be issued to the appropriate government to reconsider the refusal to make a reference, where (i) the refusal is on irrelevant, irrational or extraneous grounds; (ii) the refusal is a result of the appropriate government examining the merits of the dispute and prejudging/adjudicating/determine the dispute; (iii) the refusal is mala fide or dishonest or actuated by malice; (iv) the refusal ignores the material available in the failure report of the Conciliation Officer or is not supported by any reason." 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made herein above, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-1 dated 15.11.2006 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to refer the matter to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, within a period of six weeks, after the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.