The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appropriate government's function in making a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is administrative and should not involve adjudicating the dispute on merits.

( 1 ) AS per the Registrar s Order dated 12th April, 2004, respondent No. 1/uoi has been duly served and no one appears for it. There is r,o representation on behalf of the respondent No. 1 /uoi in Court today.

( 2 ) RULE. With the consent of the Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.

( 3 ) THIS writ petition challenges the Order dated 16th July, 2002 (Annexutv- a at Page 15 of the writ petition), declining to refer the industrial dispute raised in respect of the petitioner for adjudication. The petitioner claims that he had worked for about three years from 1st July, 1997 as a Helper on daily wages basis against the permanent perennial nature of work with the respondent No. The respondent No. 1 is the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi (in short the uoi ), who lias the authority to make the reference of the industrial d ispute raised by the aggrieved workman under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the act ) and whose Desk Officer has passed the Order dated 16th July, 2002 impugned in this writ petition, The respondent No. 2 is the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, through its Joint Secretary (Admn.), Anusandhan Bhawan, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the csir ), the employer of the petitioner though no relief is claimed against it.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case in brief are: that on 1st July, 1997, the petitioner had been employed as a Helper on daily wages basis with CSIR in its Human Resource Development Group at New Delhi. The petitioner thereafter continued to work with CSIR without any break to the satisfaction of his employer till the date of his termination of services, i,e. , on 29th September, 2000. It is the petitioner s case that his services were terminated on 29th September, 2000 by the CSIR without assigning any reason thereof and without following the procedure prescribed by the provisions of Section 25-F/25-G, 25-H of the ID Act. It has also been averred that thereafter the CSIR made fresh appointments to the post of Helper. Thereafter on 3rd November, 2000 the petitioner filed a Statement of claim (Annexure-B at Pages 16-19 of the petition) along with documents before the Conciliation Officcr. On 24th January, 2001, the CSIR filed a reply before the Conciliation Officer stating that the petitioner was not its employee as there was no relationship of employer-employee as he was employed by the CSIR through a contractor. On 16th March, 2001, the petitioner filed a rejoinder, reiterating his claim. On 12th October, 2001, the Conciliation Officer filed a failure of the conciliation report as no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. It is the petitioner s contention that despite of elapse of more than a year the dispute raised by him was not referred to adjudication by the UOI and accordingly he moved an application dated 11th June, 2002 (Annexure-E at Pages 29-30 of the petition) to the UOI, requesting them to refer his case for adjudication to a competent Labour Court/tribunal. Pursuant to the petitioner s said application, on 16th July, 2002, the UOI through its Desk Officer passed the impugned order declining to refer the dispute for adjudication which reads:

"no. L-42012/214/2001-IR (CM-II) Government of India/bharat Sarkar Ministry of Labour/shram Mantralaya New Delhi, Dated : 16/7/2002 to, 1. The Head (H. R. D.), Council for Scientific Research and Ind. Research Shri Prem Kumar, S/o Sh, Dilbagh Singh, C/o Sh. M. N, Singh, X/1837, Park Marg, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi-110031 sub : I. D. between the management of CSIR and their workman, Sh. Prem Kumar over the matter of termination of his services. Sir, I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No. ALC-1/ 8 (41)/2000 dated 12/10/2001 from the ALC (Delhi) received in this Ministry on 16/10/2001 on the above mentioned subject and to say that, prima facie, this