JUDGMENT A.K. Menon, J. - The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 29th October, 2014 passed by the Ministry of Labour declining to refer the dispute to adjudication following the failure of conciliation by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) recorded vide his letter dated 6th May, 2014. The facts in brief are as follows : 2. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent no. 5 - bank. According to the petitioner his services were terminated illegally on 23rd March, 2011. Although an enquiry was held, it is the petitioners contention that the enquiry was held without complying with principles of natural justice. Respondent no. 5 through its Deputy General Manager was the disciplinary authority. The allegation against the petitioner was one of financial irregularities and misappropriation. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 20th February, 2010 consisting of 5 basic allegations inter alia of accepting cash deposit from customers on 87 occasions and not crediting it on the same date, 28 instances of debiting accounts twice, 4 instances of debiting accounts more than the actual amount of the cheque, accepting cash from customers and not crediting it in their respective accounts and lastly availing of loan from financial institutions without permission from employee bank. All charges except the last one have been held to have been proved. An industrial dispute was raised. 3. The bank filed a reply inter alia relying upon letters dated 29th July, 2009 and 1st August, 2009 whereby the petitioner admitted to some of the allegations of misappropriation. The petitioner had admittedly used bank''s funds in June, 2009 and promised would be repaid in July, 2009. Copies of these communications are annexed at Exhibit -B and Exhibit-C to the affidavit in reply. Thus it was contended that the petitioner had admitted charges leveled against him. Conciliation failed and the office of the Conciliator observed that the petitioner was removed from service with superannuation benefits without disqualification for future employment. Vide order dated 22nd March 2011 he was given option of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. It was contended by the petitioner that his appeal was not considered. He pleaded innocence. The conciliation officer observed that an enquiry had been conducted and petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself. The conciliation officer was of the view that efforts at conciliation had failed. It was contended by the petitioner that his appeal was not considered. He pleaded innocence. The conciliation officer observed that an enquiry had been conducted and petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself. The conciliation officer was of the view that efforts at conciliation had failed. This resulted in the Ministry of Labour considering the failure report and found that it was not a fit case for reference because the petitioner was removed from service on the ground of misappropriation of funds and petitioner had failed to prove his innocence. Furthermore, the petitioner had demanded and received gratuity from the respondent bank which is only paid on termination of services. The petitioner is before this Court in support of his contention that injustice has been done to him by declining to refer the dispute . 4. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Nathani relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Venugopalan Nair vs. Union of India and Ors [(2004) (4) LLN 1043] holding that in a dispute regarding retrenchment the government could not go into issue of merits and the government was directed to refer this dispute merely because the person accepted compensation or the retrenchment benefit he need not be deemed to have accepted his termination as legal. He relied upon this ratio in support of the petitioners case. 5. In yet another case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Ors [ (1989) 3 SCC 271 ] the Supreme Court had observed that while 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 exists or is apprehended. The formation of such opinion is not the same as adjudicating the dispute itself on merits. Thus it was submitted that the Court further found that while exercising power under Section 10(1) of the Act, the function of the appropriate government is an administrative function of the government and not a judicial or quasijudicial function and government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute. 6. While opposing the petition Mr. Dsouza submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court only as an after thought. It was contended that the petitioner was given complete opportunity of defending himself on merits. The petitioner admitted charges leveled against him during the enquiry. 6. While opposing the petition Mr. Dsouza submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court only as an after thought. It was contended that the petitioner was given complete opportunity of defending himself on merits. The petitioner admitted charges leveled against him during the enquiry. He relied upon contents of the affidavit of Shri Jagdish G. Ramteke dated 4th October, 2016 along with annexures thereto which reiterated five charges levelled against the petitioner and the fact that all the charges, except the last one of having obtained a loan without permission of the employer bank were true. He submitted that the respondent ensured the case of the petitioner was conducted in a fair manner, in compliance with principles of natural justice and opportunity of defending himself was given. He was also furnished with report of the enquiry officer ordering the punishment imposed. He was also granted a personal hearing. That in accordance with Rules and regulations he was also paid gratuity of Rs. 3,50,000/- which was credited to his account and was duly acknowledged by him. He therefore submitted that the petitioner''s application is fraudulent and an afterthought. 7. Mr. D''souza and relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Bombay Union of Journalists and Ors vs. State of Bombay [ AIR 1964 SC 1617 ] and the observation in paragraph 8 to the effect that while entertaining an application for writ of mandamus against an order made by the Appropriate Government, the Court is not sitting in appeal over the order that it is not entitled to consider the propriety or satisfactory character of the reasons given by the Government. The Appropriate Government is not required to write an elaborate and exhaustive order citing all reasons for refusing to make a reference. He therefore submitted that in the instant case there is no occasion to complain. 8. Relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Indian Tea Association vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and Ors [ AIR 2000 SC 915 ] Mr. Dsouza submitted that the Appropriate Government would not be justified in making a reference satisfying itself whether a dispute exists or is apprehended and in order to enable government to make a reference an administrative order and not a judicial or quasi judicial one. Dsouza submitted that the Appropriate Government would not be justified in making a reference satisfying itself whether a dispute exists or is apprehended and in order to enable government to make a reference an administrative order and not a judicial or quasi judicial one. There was no need to scrutinise it minutely and only if it appears from the reasons given that the Appropriate Government took into account any irrelevant or foreign material, the Court may intervene in writ jurisdiction. He submitted that in the instant case no such occasion arose. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The order of termination was issued on 23rd March, 2011. The petitioner did nothing till 5th November, 2012 i.e. for more than a year and eight months. At this stage he only requested for release of gratuity since there was a threat of forfeiture of the amount of gratuity. This communication is dated 25th October, 2012. It is only after receiving this communication that the petitioner responded by his letter dated 29th October, 2012 wherein he once again requested release of the full amount of gratuity. He then addressed a letter dated 5th November, 2012 to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour seeking reinstatement in service with full back wages and setting out reasons inter alia that there was no loss caused to the bank due to his conduct. He contended that there was no misappropriation. However vide letters addressed by him at the material time, including handwritten letters dated 29th July, 2009 and 1st August, 2009 addressed to the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda the petitioner had admitted to use of customers funds in June, 2009 and agreed that the amount would be repaid on 30th July, 2009. He later sought to withdraw this letter all of which is seen to be considered during the enquiry during which the petitioner has admitted to these instances. The delay in seeking reinstatement occasioned when his services were terminated on 23rd March, 2011. It is in these circumstances that the Appropriate Government declined to make a reference. If the petitioner was interested in pursuing reinstatement, he would have done so at the relevant time and not asked for payment of gratuity. The delay in seeking reinstatement occasioned when his services were terminated on 23rd March, 2011. It is in these circumstances that the Appropriate Government declined to make a reference. If the petitioner was interested in pursuing reinstatement, he would have done so at the relevant time and not asked for payment of gratuity. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner''s case does not call for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The appropriate government has taken a view and no case is made out for doubting the correctness of the view. In the circumstances I pass the following order : (i) Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) No costs.