The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appropriate government's function in determining industrial disputes is administrative and not judicial or quasi-judicial, and it cannot delve into the merits of the dispute beyond its conferred power.

S. S. NIJJAR, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of Civil writ petition Nos.9071, 9072, 9073, 9074, 9075, 9076, 9077, 9078, 9079, 9080, 9081, 9082, 9083, 9084, 9085, 9086, 9087, 9117 and 10181 of 2002, as the questions of law raised are identical. Even the parties in all the cases are the same.

2. The petitioners had been appointed as workmen on different dates with respondent no.3. The petitioners were employed by private contractors engaged by the Food corporation of India (for short, the FCI) to provide security at the godowns of the FCI. The work being done by the petitioners was of permanent nature. Their services had been terminated on different dates after they completed 240 days as defined in Sec.25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The services of the petitioners had been terminated by the management without complying with the provisions of Sec.25-F of the Act. The workman raised a demand notice Annexure P.1 to Civil Writ Petition No.9071 of 2002. In that case it was pleaded by the petitioner that he had been working in the godown of the FCI since july, 1994 at a monthly salary of Rs.1080. There was no complaint against the work and conduct of the petitioner. Onjuly26, 1997, the services of the petitioner had been terminated without issuing any notice, charge-sheet, retrenchment compensation or enquiry. It was claimed that the respondent-FCI had violated sections 25-G and 25 -H of the Act. It was also claimed that the petitioner was wrongly being described as a contract worker by the FCI. The demand notice was examined by respondent no.1 and the following order was passed:

"i am directed to refer to the Failure of conciliation Report No.8 (213)/97-ALF, dated June 8, 1999, from the Assistant labour Commissioner (C), Faridabad, received in this Ministry on June 5, 1999 on the above subject and to say that prima facie this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons: as the workman was never engaged/appointed directly by Food corporation of India, there existed no employer-employee relationship between food Corporation of India management and the workman. The workman was employed by a security agency. "

3. The petitioners have filed the aforesaid writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, challenging the impugned orders which are identical in nature. They have also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.1, to make a reference under the Industrial Disputes act to the Labour Court. It is submitted by Ms. Sanjivni Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the points in issue are no longer res Integra as a number of writ petitions filed by similarly situated workmen have already been allowed by a Division Bench of this Court. She has made a reference to the decision rendered by this Court on July 18, 2001 in Civil writ Petition No.11612 of 2000. We have perused the record of the aforesaid writ petition. Ms. Sanjivni Gupta, apart/from the aforesaid decision, has also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another V/s. State of Bihar and others AIR 1989 sc 1565 : 1989 (3) SCC 271 : 1989-II-LLJ-558, to submit that it is not the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 to adjudicate upon merits of the reference sought by the workman.

4. On the other hand, Sri P. C. Goel, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that respondent No.1 is not precluded from making a prima facie examination of the merits to satisfy itself that an industrial dispute actually exists. Sri Goel has further pointed out that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as they have been filed after inordinate delay. According to the learned counsel, the services of the petitioner were terminated on July 26, 1997 and the order annexure P2 challenged in this writ petition was passed on October 29, 1999. The writ-petitions were filed on April 29,