( 1 ) ). THESE petitions involving the same questions of fact and law are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) ). THE petitioners in all these petitions have challenged the order of Reference dated 3. 2. 2000 (Annexure : A) made by the Government of Gujarat referring the industrial dispute, consequent upon failure of conciliation, to the Industrial Tribunal No. 5 at Ahmedabad for adjudication of industrial disputes. Though the petition runs in 15 pages the factual and legal controversy in these petitions is very much limited and confined to only one aspect, namely, whether the appropriate Government, namely, the State Government committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order of Reference dated 3. 2. 2000 (Annexure : A ). The stand of the petitioners is that the appropriate government, viz. the State Government committed jurisdictional error inasmuch as it did not prima facie satisfy itself before passing the impugned order of Reference (i) whether the persons claiming to be workmen are workmen within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "i. D. Act") and (ii) whether there existed any industrial dispute or not.

( 3 ) ). THE stand of the respondents in the counter Affidavit is that the order of reference is purely administrative order and as such no petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained and maintained to find out whether there was sufficient material before the Government for passing the order of reference or not. The stand for the State Government is that the so called jurisdictional facts could not be decided by the state Government because it is within the province and jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to determine whether persons raising charter of demand are workmen or not and whether the relationship of employer and employee exists between the petitioner and the so called workmen and that the question whether there existed any industrial disputes or not is also not to be decided by the State Government because this question, namely, as to what industrial dispute arose between the parties is to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal.

( 4 ) ). SHRI K. S. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sangita Pahwa, learned Counsel for the workmen and Shri I. M. Pandya and Shri R. V. Desai, learned A. G. Ps. were heard at length on the controversy raised before this Court in these petitions.

( 5 ) ). A reference of dispute whether u/s. 10 or Section 12 (5) of the I. D. Act is to be made by the appropriate Government and by no other Authority. If there is no other authority competent to refer the dispute then the jurisdiction lies with the State Government to refer the dispute to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal or the National Tribunal. It is not a case of prima facie lack of jurisdiction in the State Government to refer the dispute.

( 6 ) ). SHRI Nanavati, however, argued that while making a reference u/s. 12 (5) read with Section 10 of the Act it was obligatory for the Government to come to a prima facie satisfaction that the persons seeking reference were workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act and that there existed industrial dispute as defined u/s. 2 (k) of the Act.

( 7 ) ). THE order of reference is contained in Annexure : A. The reference had been made under the orders of the Government of Gujarat and the said order has been communicated by the Section Officer in Labour and Employment Department vide Annexure : A. Before examining the validity of the order of reference the contentions raised by Shri Nanavati have to be dealt with first.

( 8 ) ). SECTION 10 (1) of the Act provides that "where the appropriate Government is of the opinion that industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement, etc. and to other authorities mentioned in sub-clause (a) to (d) of Section 10