The Government's power to refuse to make a reference of a dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is limited to cases where the dispute is frivolous or vexatious, and it cannot be exercised on irrelevant considerations such as the settlement of accounts.

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of the two writ petitions, i,e,. C. W. P. No.1734] of 1994 and C. W. P. No.18268 of 1994, as the question of law required to be determined in both the petitions is identical. In both these petitions, a challenge has been made to the orders passed by the Government of Haryana refusing to make reference of the dispute raised by the petitioners in relation to the termination of their services.

2. In brief, facts of C. W. P. No.17341 of 1994 are that the Petitioner-workman was appointed as a dryer operator in the service of respondent No.2, on August 14, 1986, on monthly salary of Rs.500/his salary was increased from time to time and he was getting Rs.2,200 per month on the date of termination of his service. A domestic enquiry was held by the management of respondent No.2 in regard to the allegations of misconduct levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer found him guilty. Thereafter, the management of respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and, finally, terminated his service on August 11, 1993, The petitioner submitted a notice of demand dated October 12, 1993. Conciliation proceedings were held by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Karnal. He submitted a report under Sec.12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , indicating that there was no-possibility of compromise. Thereafter, the Government issued order, annexure P-4, and refused to make reference of the dispute on the ground that the petitioner had settled accounts with the management.

3. The petitioner has challenged this order of the Government on the ground that after receipt of the failure report, the Government had no jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the case and it was duty-bound to make reference of the dispute. The petitioner has pleaded that he was removed from service as a measure of victimisation.

4. In. C. W. P. No.18268 of 1994, the petitioner has pleaded that he was appointed as a dryer operator in the service of respondent No.2 with effect from September 18, 1989. Initially, he was paid Rs.850 per month. Later on, this amount was increased to Rs.1,700 per month. His service was terminated on the basis of a domestic enquiry. He challenged the termination of his service. The Assistant Labour Commissioner submitted his failure report under Sec.12 (4) and thereafter the Government has passed the impugned order, annexure P-4, refusing to make a reference.

5. Though learned counsel for respondent No.2 has sought time to file a reply, after having perused the original record which has been produced before us by learned counsel for the State of Haryana, we are satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by adjourning the case for the reply of respondent No.2 because primarily we have to see as to whether the reasons recorded by the Government for refusing to make a reference are legally sound.

6. The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Government has refused to make a reference of the disputes raised by the petitioners on a wholly extraneous ground, namely, that the workmen had settled the accounts. Learned counsel argued that the Government has not at all applied its mind to the relevant facts and has completely overlooked the settled principles of law which govern the exercise of power under Sec.10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Government did have the jurisdiction to refuse to make a reference and that in each and every case, the Government is not bound to make a reference. Learned counsel appearing for the State further argued that where the Government finds that the dispute is frivolous or vexatious, it can decline to make a reference.

7. Learned counsel for the State has produced before us two files containing the demand notice as well as the confidential reports submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Karnal, under Sec.12 (4) of the Act. A p