ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed questioning the legality and validity of reference purported under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘ID’ Act) vide Lr.No.D1/1515/2020, dated 19.03.2021 issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4. 2. The brief facts of the petition, are : Petitioner company is registered under the Companies Act and it is engaged in the business of manufacturing Cotton yarn. Unit ‘A’ was established in the year, 1962. Petitioner company engaged permanent workmen, casual workmen and scheme workers. Petitioner unit suffered financial losses and though the management tried to revive the sick unit, however continuously suffered losses. After reopening of the unit in April, 2020 after lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic situation in the month of March, 2020, the company was unable to operate the unit and as there was no work available to the workmen of the Unit. Finally, petitioner company was forced to issue notice, dated 29.06.2020 declaring lay off w.e.f. 01.07.2020 and copy of said notice was forwarded to the State Government authorities as per provisions of ID Act. In the unit, there were two trade unions registered under Trade Union Act, 1926 representing all the workmen. Respective unions entered into various settlements under the provisions of I.D. Act from time to time and amicably settled all the disputes either bilaterally or trilaterally i.e. before the Conciliation Officer. When, a dispute was raised by the unions before Labour Department, regarding lay off, management submitted its replies from time to time. However, pending the dispute, unions entered into settlement under Section 18(1) of the ID Act vide settlement, dated 21.08.2020. Management implemented settlements fully and in fact all the workmen who reported for duty after lock down period and those who are on rolls prior to the lockdown during the month of March, 2020 submitted their resignation from service, except four workmen. Accordingly, their accounts have been settled as per terms of the settlements. All the individual workmen, who received benefits also entered individual settlements under Section 18(1) of I.D. Act confirming that there is no dispute of any nature pending between the management and the workmen and all of them received benefits including lay off compensation and left the services of the Unit by 31.08.2020. The facts were brought to the notice of the Labour Department from time to time. The facts were brought to the notice of the Labour Department from time to time. Four workmen, who preferred to continue in the employment were transferred to sister concern of the petitioner company vide letters, dated 01.09.2020, as agreed in the settlements, dated 21.08.2020. However, they have not chosen to report for the duty at the place of transfer. In case of lay-off declared due to shortage of power or due to natural calamity, there is no need for prior permission from the appropriate government as per Section 25-M of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. At the time of declaring lay-off petitioner company informed both the existing trade unions including respondent No.5 about its non-ability to operate the unit due to Covid-19 pandemic situation. The management, pursuant to the lay-off sold out machinery of the unit and the land. Power connection was surrendered to APSEB on 05.12.2020. Factories license was surrendered to DCIF office. Thus, the factory unit has been permanently closed and thereafter no industry exists. Large number of permanent workmen of the unit availed VRS benefits declared from time to time. Unions and workmen were fully aware of engagement of daily wage casual labour as per day-to-day exigencies of work and, also engagement of scheme workmen. Even casual labour was being paid-on monthly basis as agreed from time to time and no workman or union raised dispute regarding the same. Management, in fact, provided job training under a scheme for some persons every year, who inturn, after completion of such training period either worked in the unit as per availability of work or left the company on finding some alternate employment, etc. Thus, it is clear that management did not terminate any worker nor retrenched any workman. However, the central committee of an outside trade union to which respondent No.5 union appears to have been affiliated, after implementation of the said settlements, mislead some ex-workmen, who left their services long back and is trying to raise some dispute or other. Respondent No.5 trade union central committee notwithstanding the settlement, dated 21.08.2020 appears to have addressed a letter to the labour department on 08.09.2020 basing on which the department once again conducted joint meetings and the management submitted its objections several times. In fact, management submitted all the documents in support of its contentions. Respondent No.5 trade union central committee notwithstanding the settlement, dated 21.08.2020 appears to have addressed a letter to the labour department on 08.09.2020 basing on which the department once again conducted joint meetings and the management submitted its objections several times. In fact, management submitted all the documents in support of its contentions. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, though aware of the facts and having verified the documents, unilaterally, in a mechanical manner and arbitrarily admitted alleged industrial disputes into conciliation and respondent No.2 submitted failure report to respondent No.3 without even considering the replies, dated 29.01.2021 and 09.02.2021 submitted by the management. Respondent No.2 referred the industrial dispute to respondent No.4, Industrial Tribunal, for adjudication. Respondent No.3 sent a factual report to respondent No.2. It seems that respondent No.3 referred many issues without any basis and relevancy. Copy of factual report was not served on petitioner company. Respondent No.2, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, referred the industrial dispute between respondent No.5 union and the petitioner herein, to respondent No.4 vide Lr.No.D1/1515/2020, dated 19.03.2021 and respondent No.4/Tribunal registered the same as industrial dispute No.14 of 2021 and issued notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, above writ petition is filed. 2. Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended inter alia that under Section 21 of the ID Act, a Conciliation Officer i.e. respondent No.3 is empowered to adjudicate upon any dispute for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. In case, settlement is not arrived at, conciliation officer shall close the investigation and send report to the appropriate government, with regard to the steps taken by the Conciliation Officer to arrive at a settlement. The conduct of Conciliation Officer, while, exercising power under Section 12 of the ID Act, is not amenable to a writ of certiorari. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Further, according to the petitioner, they had closed the industry permanently in December, 2020 and the same is in violation of Section 25-O of the ID Act. The agreement entered into with the unions by the petitioner is illegal since the contention of union is that agreements were finalized without considering the objections of the unions. The lay off by the petitioner is illegal and unjustified. Management informed the Government about the lay-off to be affected from 01.07.2020, in letter, dated 29.06.2020. The agreement entered into with the unions by the petitioner is illegal since the contention of union is that agreements were finalized without considering the objections of the unions. The lay off by the petitioner is illegal and unjustified. Management informed the Government about the lay-off to be affected from 01.07.2020, in letter, dated 29.06.2020. But, the said letter was received by the Government on 04.07.2020. Therefore, no prior permission was obtained from the Government. It is further stated that the admission of the petitioner that two trade unions raised dispute to the lay off declared by the petitioner, which demonstrates that lay off was neither informed to the Unions nor the Government. In fact, Conciliation Officer, in letter, dated 30.09.2020 addressed to the petitioner requested to provide information with regard to the full and final payments made to the workers, copies of resignation letters submitted by the workers and list of workers who had not submitted their resignations, etc., which were important for conciliation process. But the said details were not furnished to respondent No.3. During the course of conciliation proceedings, trade unions contended that the management entered into the agreement with only 300 workers, but the reply submitted by the management on 04.08.2020 to the conciliation officer would demonstrate that the number of workers working in the petitioner company in the year, 2020 would be 808 and thus, it would demonstrate that petitioner company did not enter into agreement with majority of workers. Petitioner management, during the pendency of conciliation, raised several contentions without substantiating the same with any material proof. The lay-off declared by the petitioner management is not within the parameters of Section 25-M of the ID Act. The pandemic situation did not prevent the petitioner from notifying the government about lay off to be declared by the petitioner. Petitioner admits that the Unions submitted several representations to the Labour Department after layoff was declared by petitioner company. Therefore, Conciliation Officer initiated the conciliatory proceedings under Section 12 of the ID Act. Conciliation Officer made all efforts to resolve the issue, but petitioner did not file the documents sought by the Conciliation Officer, which were crucial for resolving the issue. Therefore, Conciliation Officer initiated the conciliatory proceedings under Section 12 of the ID Act. Conciliation Officer made all efforts to resolve the issue, but petitioner did not file the documents sought by the Conciliation Officer, which were crucial for resolving the issue. As Conciliation Officer did not find any possibility of an amicable solution between the parties, a report was sent under Section 4 of ID Act to the Government on the steps taken for resolution in the conciliation which resulted in failure. In view of failure of conciliation process, report was sent to respondent No.2 stating the reasons for failure of conciliatory process. Respondent No.2 vide G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 02.08.2008 notified authority to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.D1/1515/2020, dated 19.03.2021 the said dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal–cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur for adjudication of the issues and there are no merits in the writ petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 3. This Court initially ordered notice on 11.08.2021 and granted interim stay of further proceedings in ID No.14 of 2021 on file of respondent No.4/Tribunal. 4. Interim order has been extended from time to time. Petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking amendment by adding respondent No.5 and the same was ordered on 04.08.2022. By virtue of amendment, General Secretary, Super Spinning Mill “A” Unit Karmika Sangham, AITUC was added as respondent No.5. 5. Respondent No.5 filed counter and inter alia contended that the petitioner company used to engage required workers under various categories, such as permanent, casual, skilled-casual, sara causal, VRS-casual, Dormitory, casual-3 Jute, etc. Two recognized unions existed in the petitioner company namely Kirikera Super Spinning Mills “A” Unit Karmika Sangham affiliated to AITUC with registration No.F-1638 and Kirikera Super Spinning Mills “A” Unit Mazdoor Union affliated to AITUC with registration No.F-1637 and the said units used to enter into Bipartite Agreements with the Management. As per list of workers prepared by the petitioner, during the year, 2019 and 2020 the company consisted of 1679 and 808 workers respectively. Petitioner unit was working till March, 2020. As per list of workers prepared by the petitioner, during the year, 2019 and 2020 the company consisted of 1679 and 808 workers respectively. Petitioner unit was working till March, 2020. After the unit was reopened on 01.07.2020, after Covid- 19 lockdown restrictions, the petitioner illegally submitted Form No-1 to the Commissioner of labour, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada intimating that unit of petitioner at Kirikera, Hindupur Mandal, Ananthapur Mandal had been laid off under Rule 77-A of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 laying off 163 workmen out of 178 workmen said to be employed in the unit w.e.f. 01.07.2020. It was mentioned that 163 workmen alone are entitled for compensation under Section 25(c) of the ID Act. In the lay off notice, dated 29.06.2020, petitioner stated that unit has not been operating to its full capacity since long time due to lack of sufficient orders and, also due to unprecedented pandemic COVID-19 situation. After declaring lay off by notice, dated 29.06.2020, respondent No.5 addressed a letter dated 17.07.2020 to respondent No.2 raising certain disputes such as directing the management to run the mill in full pledged manner and pointed out the action of the management in not making casual workmen existing in the muster rolls and taking only 163 workmen. In the demand/letter it was pointed out about the inaction of the management in not taking steps to recommend provident fund benefits in respect of family members of seven workmen who died during the course of their employment and not submitted any resignation letters, not paying equal pay for equal work in respect of casual workmen, not sanctioning casual leave to the workmen, long pending demands of the workmen from the year, 2000, etc. In response to said demand of respondent No.5, respondent No.3 issued letter in Rc.No.B/129/2020, dated 29.07.2020 to the petitioner reiterating the demands made by two unions of the workmen and further stated that under Section 25-F of the Act, all the employees who had completed one year of service should be given one month prior notice for retrenchment irrespective of casual or regular and hence calling upon the management to submit the list of employees along with their month wise duty period who had worked in the year, 2019-2000. Respondent No.3 also called upon the management to furnish list of employees terminated from December, 2019 to till date along with details as to whether prior notice was given to them or not; whether the termination benefits were given to them or not; to submit details of total service period from the date of joining of all those workers who had worked in the unit in the last three years and to submit the list of permanent, casual and contract employees working in the unit for the calendar year, 2019 and eventually petitioner was called upon to submit explanation within seven days as to why the lay off announced by the management cannot be treated as illegal under Section 25-C and 25-M of the ID Act. Secretary of respondent No.5 has been working in the Kirikera Super Spinning Mills “A” Unit for more than 22 years. In the year, 2015 respondent No.5 was elected as General Secretary and thereafter also it was elected consecutively for three terms as General Secretary. Petitioner did not pay compensation to the workers and hence ID No.14 of 2021 was filed duly serving a copy of the same to the petitioner. After receiving claim statement, the present writ petition is filed. As per Section 36 of the ID Act, workman, who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under the ID Act. Respondent No.2 issued show cause notice vide Rc.No.D1/1197/2020, dated 03.09.2020 to the petitioner explaining the reasons of legality in declaring lay off and not paying compensation in respect of all the workmen available in the rolls of the Unit, instead of 163 workmen for whom compensation was paid. In response to the said show cause notice, petitioner submitted explanation, dated 09.09.2020 once again repeating the provisions of Section 25 M of ID Act. It was specifically stated that writ petition is not maintainable against reference under Section 12 (3) of the ID Act. In case no settlement is arrived at, the Officer shall send a report to the Government setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute. The duty of the Conciliatory officer is to facilitate the settlement and on failure of the conciliation refer the same to the Government and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The duty of the Conciliatory officer is to facilitate the settlement and on failure of the conciliation refer the same to the Government and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Petitioner filed reply denying the averments of the counter affidavits. 7. Heard Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Labour and Smt. Santhi Sree Vallabhaneni, learned counsel representing Sri Chalasani Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the management has entered into various settlements under the ID Act, with the trade unions registered under Trade Union Act, 1926 representing all the workmen of the unit for amicable settlement of the disputes before the Conciliation Officer. When a dispute was raised by the unions before Labour Department, regarding lay off, management submitted its replies from time to time. However, without considering the same, the reference impugned was made. With regard to number of workmen working in various categories, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to non-availability of work in the unit during the year 2019, the number of workers engaged was reduced drastically from time to time and many workmen stopped reporting for duty on their own. He would submit that after reopening of the unit after lockdown only 171 workers reported for duty and thereafter the petitioner company declared lay off to 163 workmen as on 01.07.2020, who are on rolls. He would submit that settlements were entered with the workmen and 358 workmen of different categories received benefits. However, one Shivappa and three others, who were members of the union, which entered into settlement were transferred to another unit, as per the settlement, but they failed to report for duty. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lay off is not illegal as it was declared by paying lay off compensation under Section 25C of the ID Act. He would submit that petitioner declared lay off to the workmen, who on duty as on the date of declaring lay off w.e.f. 01.07.2020 and the question of declaring lay off to the workmen, who did not report for duty does not arise. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that claim petition was filed on behalf of the union by R. Shivappa, without any authority. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that claim petition was filed on behalf of the union by R. Shivappa, without any authority. He submits that respondent No.5 union did not raise any dispute either with the management or with the conciliation officer, respondent No.3 herein and categorically admitted about the settlements, dated 21.08.2020 with two trade unions existing in the unit, under the provisions of I.D. Act. He submits that there is no illegality in declaration of lay off, under Section 25 M in view of the exception such as shortage of power or natural calamity. In the instant case, due to COVID-19 circumstances, unit went into further losses, and it is universal calamity. Since there is no illegality in declaring lay off, reference issued by respondent No.2 is illegal. Hence, prays to allow the writ petition. 11. Learned Government Pleader for Labour while reiterating the contentions raised in the counter affidavit would specifically submit that the lay off declared by the petitioner is illegal and unjustified. He submits that according to the petitioner, management informed the Government about the lay-off to be affected from 01.07.2020, in letter, dated 29.06.2020. But, the said letter was received by the Government on 04.07.2020. He submits that the lay-off declared by the petitioner management is not within parameters of Section 25-M of the ID Act. The pandemic situation did not prevent the petitioner from notifying the government about lay off to be declared by the petitioner. 12. Learned Government Pleader further submits that petitioner has not disputed with regard to the fact that the Unions submitted several representations to the Labour Department after lay-off was declared by petitioner company. He would also submit that Conciliation Officer, in fact, in letter, dated 30.09.2020 addressed to the petitioner requested to provide information with regard to the full and final payments made to the workers, copies of resignation letters submitted by the workers and list of workers who had not submitted their resignations, etc., which were important for conciliation process. But the said details were not furnished to respondent No.3. Therefore, Conciliation Officer initiated the conciliatory proceedings under Section 12 of the ID Act. He further submits that though the petitioner management, during the pendency of conciliation, raised several contentions, the same were not substantiated with any material proof. 13. But the said details were not furnished to respondent No.3. Therefore, Conciliation Officer initiated the conciliatory proceedings under Section 12 of the ID Act. He further submits that though the petitioner management, during the pendency of conciliation, raised several contentions, the same were not substantiated with any material proof. 13. Conciliation Officer made all efforts to resolve the issue, but petitioner did not file the documents sought by the Conciliation Officer, which were crucial for resolving the issue. As Conciliation Officer did not find any possibility of an amicable solution between the parties, a report was sent under Section 4 of ID Act to the Government on the steps taken for resolution in the conciliation which resulted in failure. 14. He submits that under Section 21 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, Conciliation Officer i.e. respondent No.3 is empowered to adjudicate upon any dispute for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute and such exercising of power under Section 12 of the ID Act, is not amendable to a writ of certiorari. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 15. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 while touching the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, specifically contended with regard to obtaining prior permission from the appropriate Government before declaring lay-off by taking rescue of Section 25-M of the ID Act. He placed reliance on Gujarat Mazadoor Sabha and Others vs. the state of Gujarat, AIR 2020 sc 4601 , Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further contended that writ of certiorari is not maintainable. In support his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the Employees in the Caltex (India) Ltd., Madras and others vs. the Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Government of Madras and others, AIR 1959 Mad 441 , Royal Calcutta Golf Club Mazudur Union vs. State of West Bengal and others, 1957 ILLJ 218 Cal. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the present writ petition which is filed challenging proceedings referring the disputes raised by respondent No.5 is premature and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 16. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the present writ petition which is filed challenging proceedings referring the disputes raised by respondent No.5 is premature and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the contentions raised by learned counsel for respondent No.5, would submit that in the present case two unions representing all the workmen working in the unit settled all the pending issues with the management and the said settlements were duly implemented by the management. It is settled principle of law that settlement under Section 18(1) of ID Act with the respective trade union is binding on all its members. Therefore, there is no industrial dispute. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on State of Punjab vs. The Gandhara Transport Company (P) Ltd. And Ors., AIR 1975 SC 531 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “… we are left with the position that the espousal of the dispute, in this case, was only by five out of sixty employees of the respondent-company. It cannot in the circumstances, be held that there has been an espousal of the dispute in this case by an appreciable body of the workmen of the respondent-company so as to make it an industrial dispute. The State Government will have jurisdiction to make a reference only if there is an Industrial Dispute. As there was no Industrial Dispute, the reference made by the State Government has been rightly held by the High Court to be incompetent.” 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the present case neither respondent No.5 union nor substantial number of workers raised any dispute either with the management or with the conciliation officer and hence, there is no industrial dispute. 19. He further submitted that union is not directly interested in employment and non-employment of a particular industry and union has no locus standi to brand dispute as industrial dispute. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Employees of Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd., Madras vs. Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Ors., AIR 1963 AP 223 wherein, this Court held as under: “23. It is thus clear that there cannot be an industrial dispute unless the cause of the aggrieved workmen or group of workmen is taken up by some of the workmen employed in the establishment. It is thus clear that there cannot be an industrial dispute unless the cause of the aggrieved workmen or group of workmen is taken up by some of the workmen employed in the establishment. If the cause of the victimized workmen is not taken up by some of the other employees of the employer, the dispute remains an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute.” Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the writ petition. 20. According to the petitioner company, all the workmen of the unit entered into various settlements under the provisions of I.D. Act and pending the dispute, unions entered into settlement under Section 18(1) of the ID Act vide settlement, dated 21.08.2020, which were implemented by the petitioner company. However, as per the counter averments, settlement was not arrived at with all the employees. It was specifically mentioned in the counter with regard to the reference made by the Officer, which reads thus: “… during the course of conciliation proceedings the trade unions contended that the management entered into the agreement with only 300 workers but the reply submitted by the management on 04.08.2020 to the conciliation officer itself would demonstrate that the number of workers, in the year, 2020 working in the petitioner industry, would stand at 808 workers. The above fact would demonstrate that the management had not entered into agreements with the majority of the workers.” 21. Therefore, the plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that the management has entered into settlement with all the workmen, prima facie, cannot be accepted. 22. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither respondent No.5 union nor substantial number of workers raised any dispute either with the management or with the conciliation officer and hence, there is no industrial dispute between the petitioner and workmen. Even the said contention lacks merit since in the counter filed by respondent No.2 it was contended that petitioner admitted that the Unions submitted several representations to the Labour Department after lay off was declared by petitioner company. The same was not disputed by petitioner and in fact, it is a question of fact it cannot be decided in the writ petition. The reference court has to decide the same. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, have no application to the present case. The same was not disputed by petitioner and in fact, it is a question of fact it cannot be decided in the writ petition. The reference court has to decide the same. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, have no application to the present case. This Court does not find any perversity in the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 seeking to refer it as industrial dispute. 23. One of the contentions raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents is with regard to obtaining prior permission from the appropriate Government before declaring lay-off by taking rescue of Section 25-M of the ID Act. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case lay off declared is due to shortage of power or due to natural calamity, there is no need of prior permission from the appropriate government as per Section 25-M of the ID Act. 24. In Gujarat Mazadoor Sabha and Others vs. the state of Gujarat (referred to supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court while discussing about COVID-19 pandemic observed as under: “We find that the economic slowdown created by the COVID-19 pandemic does not qualify as an internal disturbance threatening the security the State. The pandemic as put a severe burden on existing system, particularly public health, infrastructure and has led to a sharp decline in economic activities. The Union Government has taken recourse to the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. However, it has not affected the Security of India, or of a part of its territory in a manner that disturbs the peace and integrity of the country. …” 25. As pointed out by learned Government Pleader, taking shelter, in view COVID-19 pandemic for declaring lay off without obtaining prior permission from the government to deny the benefits of the workmen who are existing on the rolls of the Unit, is not permissible. In fact, the reference court will look into the same and decide as to the number of workmen on the day of lay off and their settlements etc., 26. The other contention raised on behalf of respondents is that the present writ petition which is filed challenging proceedings referring the disputes raised by respondent No.5 is premature and hence, writ petition is not maintainable. 27. The other contention raised on behalf of respondents is that the present writ petition which is filed challenging proceedings referring the disputes raised by respondent No.5 is premature and hence, writ petition is not maintainable. 27. In the Employees in the Caltex (India) Ltd., Madras and others vs. the Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Government of Madras and others (referred to supra), it was held that reference is neither Judicial nor Quasi-Judicial in nature and hence a writ of Certiorari is not maintainable. 28. In Royal Calcutta Golf Club Mazudur Union vs. State of West Bengal and others (referred to supra), it was held that the function is administrative in nature and a Writ of Certiorari cannot be invoked against and administrative action of the conciliatory officer and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable as it is the duty of the officer to submit a report to the Government with regard to the dispute the process of settlement and the steps taken and the reasons to the dispute the process of settlement and the steps taken and the reasons for the failure to reach settlement and there is no independent decision making by the Conciliation Officer in the said process. 29. Thus, in view of expressions in the judgements referred to supra, reference made under ID Act is only administrative in nature and hence the writ petition itself is not maintainable. This court also does not deal with the merits of the matter. The discussion made above is basing on the material available on record and findings, if any, recorded will not come in the way of the Tribunal in deciding the reference. 30. In view of the above discussion, this court doesn’t find any merit in the above writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 31. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.