ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Union for quashing the order of refusal of reference contained in Letter no. L-20012/03/2015 – IR (CM-1) dated 16.03.2015. Order dated 16.03.2015 is quoted hereunder: “S/Shri Shashi Bhusan Kumar and 584 others are not entitled for employment by the Management of ECL at Badjna Colliery, since the Union failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim that there were employer and employees relationship between them,” 3. From mere perusal of the order, it is evident that the concerned Government has exceeded its jurisdiction by refusing the dispute for reference. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Union of India, but the stand taken in the counter affidavit is not a ground for passing the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-UOI has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of M/S Rahman Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 2016 SC 551 [: 2016(2) JLJR (SC)89]. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-ECL has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr. reported in (2015)15 SCC 1 , in the case of Workmen of Sundaram Industries Vs. Sundaram Industries Ltd. & Anr. reported in 1997 (2) LLJ 1090 , in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 839 and in the case of Asst. Engineer, CAD, Kota Vs. Dhan Kunwar reported in (2006) 5 SCC 481 [: 2006 (4) JLJR (SC) 24. 7. All judgments referred by respondents are authority of the legal preposition that concerned Government is authorized under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to take Administrative decision while considering the dispute for reference to adjudicator or conciliator or Mediator etc. No adjudicatory function can be performed by concerned Government. Application of mind is sine qua non in all decision be Administrative or Adjudicatory. But, role is different in Administrative and Adjudicatory decision. In Administrative decision, mind will not function as Adjudicator. How an existing or apprehended dispute should be resolved or settled is the consideration, while performing duty assigned under Section 10 of the Act. 8. It is trite that nothing can be added or subtracted in the impugned order by affidavit. But, role is different in Administrative and Adjudicatory decision. In Administrative decision, mind will not function as Adjudicator. How an existing or apprehended dispute should be resolved or settled is the consideration, while performing duty assigned under Section 10 of the Act. 8. It is trite that nothing can be added or subtracted in the impugned order by affidavit. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been enacted for the purpose of promoting industrial peace and for amicable settlement of dispute between the parties. 9. From perusal of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is quite clear that the concerned Government has been given jurisdiction to ascertain the proper forum for resolving the dispute i.e. Whether the dispute should be resolved by Arbitration, Conciliation, Mediation or Adjudication. This function is administrative in nature and only this jurisdiction has been authorized by law to the concerned Government. The concerned Government has not been authorized to scuttle the dispute itself and prohibit the resolution of dispute by taking a decision as Adjudicator. The party cannot be prohibited or stopped from resolving their dispute by exercising power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The concerned Government is merely supposed to channelize the resolution of dispute by way of Arbitration, Conciliation, Mediation or Adjudication. 10. It is relevant to mention herein that every citizen has right to get an opportunity to resolve the dispute amicably by one or other methodology. Resolving the dispute cannot be prohibited by exercising power under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as it is a misuse of administrative power vested to the concerned Government. 11. In view of the above discussion and judicial pronouncement, this Court is of the view that the concerned Government has exceeded its jurisdiction and as such, the impugned order of refusal of reference contained in Letter no. L-20012/03/2015 –IR (CM-1) dated 16.03.2015 is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Central Government. The concerned Central Government is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed.