JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Respondents. 2. By the impugned order dated 01.08.2012 (Annexure-12), the Ministry of Labour, Government of India has refused to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for adjudication for the following reasons. "The workman tendered his resignation vide application dated 29.4.2008 and the same was accepted by the Competent Authority w.e.f 30.5.2008 vide order dated 24.10.2008. Hence, the dispute is not deemed fit for adjudication." Annexure-5 dated 30.03.2009 is the application of the petitioner seeking reference of the industrial dispute. 3. After acceptance of resignation with effect from 30.05.2008 pursuant to application dated 29.04.2008, the Respondent employer proceeded to settle the post retirement dues of the petitioner by letter dated 15.05.2009 (Annexure-6) and 25.05.2009 (Annexure-7) as well which has prompted the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute. Conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad commenced and ended in failure. Petitioner neither before the Conciliating Authority nor before this Court, has brought on record any material to support the allegation that his resignation was procured by any particular person by resorting to any undue influence or fraud or coercion, etc. There are no complaints against any individual before any authority. Petitioner has relied upon the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another vs. State of Bihar & others [ (1989) 3 SCC 271 ] para-11 thereof in support of his case. 4. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour having considered the case of the parties and failure report sent by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, prima facie did not find the dispute fit for adjudication for the reasons indicated in the impugned order. 5. Considered. It is true that referring authority is not required to examine the claim of existing dispute or apprehending industrial dispute on merits. However, materials produced before it should at least make out a prima facie case that a dispute has been raised or there is apprehension of industrial dispute which is fit for adjudication. In the background facts of the case, noticed herein, petitioner has failed to substantiate his grievances before the Conciliating Officer, nor has adduced any material in the present writ petition to make out a prima facie case of existence of industrial dispute necessary for adjudication. Judgment relied upon by the petitioner does not come to his aid. In the background facts of the case, noticed herein, petitioner has failed to substantiate his grievances before the Conciliating Officer, nor has adduced any material in the present writ petition to make out a prima facie case of existence of industrial dispute necessary for adjudication. Judgment relied upon by the petitioner does not come to his aid. Para-11 of the report containing the opinion of the Apex Court only lends support to the view expressed by the Court in the foregoing paragraph. Para-11 reads as under: "11. It is true that in considering the question of making a reference under Section 10(1), the government is entitled to form an opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exist or is apprehended", as urged by Mr. Shanti Bhushan. The formation of opinion as to whether an industrial dispute "exists or is apprehended" is not the same thing as to adjudicate the dispute itself on its merits. In the instant case, as already stated, the dispute is as to whether the convoy drivers are employee or workmen of TELCO, that is to say, whether there is relationship of employer and employees between TELCO and the convoy drivers. In considering the question whether a reference should be made or not, the Deputy Labour Commissioner and/or the government have held that the convoy drivers are not workmen and, accordingly, no reference can be made. Thus, the dispute has been decided by the government which is, undoubtedly, not permissible." 6. In the light of the aforesaid facts, this Court is satisfied that no grounds for interference are made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.