- (1.) Admit. Shri Mohammed Rafiq appears for the Union of India and waives notices.
(2.) At the request and with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is ordered to be heard finally today.
(3.) The appellant was serving as Messenger with the Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik Gramin Bank. His services were terminated on April 26, 1993. The petitioner requested the appropriate Government to refer the dispute to labour Court/Tribunal as provided under I.D. Act 1947. The request was refused by the appropriate Government on the ground that there was delay in making the request for referring the dispute to the appropriate forum. This decision was taken on 4.3.93 and communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-3 to the petition. The petitioner again reiterated the request, but the same was turned-down vide letter dated April 26, 1993. The petitioner-appellant challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid action of the appropriate Government by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5115/93. The learned Single Judge rejected the petition on the ground that the dispute could not be referred after a period of about 7 years from the date of dismissal from the services. According to the learned counsel the view taken by the appropriate Government was just and proper and was not required to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution. Against this judgment, this appeal is filed. It is settled law that appropriate Government is required to see that whether the dispute exists between the parties i.e. employer and employee. Once a dispute exists the appropriate Government has no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the dispute. 'f the appropriate Government takes the task upon itself to adjudicate the merits of the dispute it would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by law. This view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Telco v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1989 (SC) page 1565 .;