The Government's power to refuse a reference under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act is discretionary and administrative, and the reasons given in the refusal must comply with the requirement under the Act. Section 11-A does not create a right or remedy for the discharged or dismissed employee to compel the Government to make a reference.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been referred to a division Bench by Bopanna, J. , by his order dated 2-4-1982, since his Lordship felt that the interpretation placed by his lordship in Raghavendra Rao, N. S. vs. State of Karnataka and Others (1981 (1) Kar. L. J. 56), requires to be examined by a larger Bench, as the question involved, is of considerable importance. His Lordship has also referred another matter to a Division bench in W. P. No. 5073 of 1980.

( 2 ) THE sum and substance of the order of reference is, whether it is incumbent on the Government, to examine the gravity of punishment imposed on the workman, objectively before it refuses to make a reference under Sections 10 and 12 (5) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a security guard in the security department of the third respondent the management of the Indian Telephone industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the I. T. I.), by producing the true copy of certificate issued by the Officer Commanding, depot, Regiment (Corps of Signals), jabbalpur, dated 23-7-1968. In his application for appointment, he had stated that he was an ex-army personnel having served the Unit Corps of Signals from 18-6-1957 to 13-6-1972 with Army No. 6240571. The petitioner was given appointment, subject to the verification of the certificate, produced by him. The ITI made a reference to the concerned military authorities, who vide their letter No. 555/wel/gen/ner dated 24-1-1977, confirmed that Army No. 6249571 pertains to Ex-L/nk. H. Shankaran. On a further reference by the ITI, it was confirmed that neither Army No. 5240571 nor Army No. 6240571 pertain to corps of Signals. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to produce the original certificate of service, said to have been issued by the Officer Commanding, Depot, Regiment (Corps of Signals), Jabbalpur. The petitioner did not produce the original certificate for verification. In this view of the matter, the ITI thought it fit to hold a departmental enquiry for the alleged misconduct. Accordingly on 25-8-1977, a chargesheet was issued directing the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under paras 13. 4 and 13. 11 of the Standing Orders. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 1-9-1977. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and a final order was passed dismissing the petitioner with effect from 3-5- 1978. On 24-5-1979 the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Act, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Bangalore. In his application before the Conciliation Officer, the petitioner did not deny that the true copy of the certificate filed by him for securing the job was not genuine. Indeed, he did not say a word about the certificate. His only contention was that the enquiry was not proper and that he belongs to schedule caste and he pointed out certain other infirmities in the enquiry. The ITI filed its objections contending that there was a fair and impartial enquiry and that the enquiry was conducted in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter the petitioner filed his objections to the written statement filed by the ITI. The Assistant Labour Commissioner sent a factual report under Section 12 (4) of the act, pointing out that there is no possibility of a settlement and the attempt was treated as failed. The Government, which considered the report referred to above, thought it fit not to make a reference. Accordingly, it issued an endorsement to the petitioner on 4-2-1981 (An. 'h' ). It is the validity of this endorsement issued under Section 12 (5) that is challenged in this writ petition. The endorsement reads thus:"sir, endorsement sub: I. D. between the workmen and the management of Indian Telephone Industries, bangalore, regarding termination of services of Sr