The Government's power to refer or not to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication is not absolute and is subject to certain limitations.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. The issue raised in this writ petition relates to the scope of power vesting in the Government under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and although the Apex Court and various High Courts have rendered several judgments on the issue, it has become necessary to examine the matter in detail keeping in view the fact that the functionaries of the Labour Departments of the Governments of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Union Territory of Chandigarh have consistently ignored the law laid down by the Apex Court while deciding whether a dispute raised by the workman or the workers union should be referred for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court or not. Looking to the importance of the issue, we gave notices to the Advocates General of Punjab and Haryana and called upon them to assist the Court in decid-ingthe issue.

2. In the writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged order Annexure P3 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab refusing to refer the dispute relating to the termination of the service of workman-Kuldeep Singh on the ground that he has been dismissed for serious misconduct and after complying with all the legal provisions.

3. Before proceeding further, brief reference to the facts is necessary.

4. Workmen-Kuldeep Singh, Madan Lal and Shakti Chand who claim themselves to be active office bearers/members of the Punjab Anand Lamp Employees Union were subjected to a domestic enquiry conducted by one Shri P.P. Sukla, retired Joint Labour Commissioner, Punjab, on the allegation of their having assaulted the Production Manager and the Assistant Quality Manager. The enquiry Officer held them guilty of the charges. An additional charge levelled against Kuldeep Singh that he had gone on illegal strike in violation of the settlement was also held proved against him. All of them were dismissed from service with effect from December 2, 1992 by the management of respondent No. 1. The petitioner-union served a notice of demand for justice upon the management challenging the unlawful dismissal of the workmen. The employer did not accept the demand. During the course of conciliation proceedings, two of the workmen, namely, Madan Lal and Shakti Chand settled their accounts and withdrew their dispute. Thereafter, the Union represented before the Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab, that the dispute be referred on behalf of workman-Kuldeep Singh. The employer contested the claim made by the Union and by the impugned order dated September 26, 1995, the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, refused to make a reference.

5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of arbitrariness and non-application of mind and disregard of the Government with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for exercise of the power of making reference. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that the dispute relating to termination of the service of workman-Kuldeep Singh falls within the ambit of Section 2(k) of the Act in-as-much as there is a dispute between the parties relating to termination/non-employment of the workman and the disputes relate to a person employed in an industrial establishment.

6. In its written statement, respondent No. 1 has challenged the locus standi or the petitioner by alleging that Kuldeep Singh is not the General Secretary of the petitioner-Union. In support of this assertion, Annexure R1 has been filed along with the reply. On merits, it has been pleaded that the workman has been dismissed from service on the basis of proved misconduct of a serious nature, namely, physical assaulting of two officers and causing injuries to them as also of having gone on illegal strike in violation of the settlement. It has also been pleaded that the workmen-Madan Lal and Shakti Chand have voluntarily accepted their involvement in the misconduct along with Kuldeep Singh and after a due enquiry the workman has been