JUDGMENT : 1. Since in all these petitions, identical question of law arises, the material facts are also identical and the respondents are also the same, these petitions are heard, considered and decided together. 2. Heard Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Rahul Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the contesting respondent State Authorities and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2-Employer. 3. Challenge in each petition is made to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad as the Appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, holding that Reference need not be made to the Labour Court, for the demand raised before it. The question which falls for consideration before this Court is, as to whether the Appropriate Government, in exercise of its power under Section 10(1) of the Act, could have refused to refer the dispute to the Labour Court, since according to that Authority, the workman was not entitled to relief, on merits. The said Authority, has also recorded that there does not exist, employer employee relationship and therefore, reference be not made. It also needs to be adjudicated, as to whether, in the facts of these cases, the finding of the Appropriate Government on the existence of employer employee relationship was warranted, and if yes, is it legally tenable. 4. In Special Civil Application No.7012 of 2013, the dispute is to the effect that the workman Baldevbhai Mangalbhai (Conductor Badge No.354) should have been paid the higher scale from 01.04.1992, as per the policy, with consequential benefits. The issue of dismissal of the said workman on 20.12.2003, was also requested to be referred to the Labour Court. In this regard, it is held by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, vide order dated 16.01.2003 that, since the workman was dismissed in the year 2003, and further that, had he been continued in service, then also he would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year of 2007, and thus, there is no employer employee relationship, and therefore the request of making Reference is rejected. 5. In Special Civil Application No. 7013 of 2013, the demand was to the effect that the workman Jayantilal Rambhai Patel (Conductor Badge No. 1546), who had retired after putting in about 26 years of service, should be paid pension. 5. In Special Civil Application No. 7013 of 2013, the demand was to the effect that the workman Jayantilal Rambhai Patel (Conductor Badge No. 1546), who had retired after putting in about 26 years of service, should be paid pension. The benefit of the higher grade scale as per the policy and the payment of consequential benefits was also demanded, for which the Reference was requested to be made to the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad Region, by the impugned order dated 16.01.2013 refused to make Reference to the Labour Court holding that the workman had applied for voluntary resignation and he was paid compensation on 23.03.2004 of Rs.59,240/-in lieu of pension and therefore, he is not entitled to pension. The order further records that, since there does not exist employer-employee relationship, and therefore the demand of making Reference is rejected. 6. In Special Civil Application No. 7014 of 2013, the grievance was to the effect that the employer had illegally dismissed one driver viz., Jagdishprasad Amrutlal Barot, on 14.12.2006. Other incidental reliefs were also asked for. The order of the Appropriate Government in this regard dated 08.10.2012 is to the effect that the workman is not in service in the year 2006 and thus the employer employee relationship has expired long back and therefore, the request of making Reference is rejected. 7. In Special Civil Application No.7015 of 2013 the demand was to the effect that, there was error in the calculation of increments of the workman viz., Ajitsinh Jasubha Jethwa, the Junior Clerk, which should be corrected and consequential payment including the higher grade scale, as per the policy, should be paid to him. The request of making reference is rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour vide impugned order dated 16.01.2013 holding that, the workman has voluntary retired on 20.01.2011, and thus there is no employer-employee relationship, and therefore, Reference need not be made. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioners has contended that the facts as emerging from record itself suggest that the Appropriate Government has erred on more than one counts. It is submitted that the Appropriate Government has, in effect, adjudicated the dispute and has arrived at the finding that the workman is not entitled to relief. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioners has contended that the facts as emerging from record itself suggest that the Appropriate Government has erred on more than one counts. It is submitted that the Appropriate Government has, in effect, adjudicated the dispute and has arrived at the finding that the workman is not entitled to relief. By referring to the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Thakor Nagjibhai Bhailal versus IPCL now amalgamated with Reliance Ind. Ltd., and Others, reported in 2011-II-LLJ 182 (Guj.), it is contended that this exercise of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was illegal and the same needs to be interfered with. It is further contended that in all cases, where the dispute is with regard to illegal termination or dismissal, the date on which the dispute is raised, there may not exist employer-employee relationship, but that itself would not make the Reference incompetent, much less the Appropriate Government can refuse to make Reference on this count. It is submitted that thus, on both the counts, the Appropriate Government has committed error which needs to be corrected by this Court. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent No.2 -employer, has submitted that the employer may contest before the appropriate forum that the workman in each petition is not entitled to any relief, but the employer has not subscribed to the view taken by the Appropriate Government that, since there is no employer-employee relationship, even Reference cannot be made. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dave has supported the impugned orders of the Appropriate Government in these cases of not making Reference to the Labour Court. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of CEAT Ltd. Vs. Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar & Ors. reported in 2006 LLR 335 to contend that, in the present cases, the respondents were not the workmen within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act and therefore, no interference be made by this Court. 11.1 Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad, who is Appropriate Government, for the purpose of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has erred on both the counts. 11.1 Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Ahmedabad, who is Appropriate Government, for the purpose of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has erred on both the counts. The rejection of the demand being referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, on the ground of non-existence of employer-employee relationship in his perception, is illegal in fact, as well as in law. In all cases, where the dispute is with regard to the termination or dismissal, the date on which the dispute is raised, the workman cannot be said to be in employment, but even then the dispute does remain an industrial dispute, as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act. The reasoning of the Appropriate Government in these cases, stands in straight conflict with the provision of Sections 2(k) and 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such an eventuality cannot legally be countenanced by this Court. Further, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has held in each case, as to how and why the workman is not entitled to claim relief, on merits. By doing so, the Authority has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him by the statute, since that could have been gone into and decided by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, in the event Reference was made. Thus, even on this count, each impugned order needs to be interfered with. 11.2 So far reliance placed on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of CEAT Ltd., (supra) is concerned, the same would not be of any help to any of the respondent Authorities, since in the said case, a batch of employees who had accepted the voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 1992, had agitated before the Industrial Tribunal that, after their retirement, the employer had floated new voluntary retirement scheme in the year 1994 which was more beneficial, and by doing so, injustice was caused to the employees who had availed benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the year 1992. In this factual background, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the said case observed that, there was no employer-employee relationship between the employees who had opted for voluntary retirement in the year 1992, to make grievance based on the voluntary retirement scheme floated by the employer in the year 1994. This, in no way, can be stretched to contend as redefining the concept of an 'industrial dispute' or a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The contention of the respondent in this regard is rejected. 11.3 In the present cases, each workman is aggrieved by the dispute with which he is personally concerned and which was meted out to him by his employer, while he was in service. Whether the concerned workman is entitled to relief or not, is an aspect which can be gone into, through the adjudication process, for which the Labour Court is the machinery provided for, by the statute. To hold that, since the workman is not entitled to relief, therefore Reference need not be made, creates a situation, where instead of Labour Court, the Appropriate Government has rejected the Reference, on merits, without adjudication thereof or even without making Reference. Precisely, this is, what is done by the Appropriate Government in these cases. In my view, this stand is not only illegal but is perverse. Further, it is very serious, since it is by an authority, none else then the Appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, which is the custodian of proper implementation of the said statute. Under these circumstances, the stand of the Appropriate Government in these cases, needs to be and is, deprecated and rejected, and the impugned orders in each petition needs to be quashed and set aside. 12. For the reasons recorded above, all these petitions are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Appropriate Government in each petition is quashed and set aside, with the direction to the Appropriate Government to make Reference in each case to the Labour Court/ Industrial Tribunal, for adjudication of the dispute. Rule is made absolute, in each petition. No order as to costs. Petitions allowed.