-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1848 OF 2008 Vaidehi S. Pathak : Petitioner V/s. IDBI Bank Ltd. & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.K.K.Singhvi, Senior Advocate, with Mr.K.S.Bapat i/b. T.R.Yadav for the petitioner. Mr.D.A.Athawalla with Mr.H.V.Mehta, Mr.M.S.Bhardwaj and Mr.P.Khosla i/b. Dr.T.C.Kaushik for respondent nos.2 & 3. ... CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.& S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2008. P.C. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Athawalla waives service for the respondent nos.2 and 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 16.1.2008 of the appropriate Government declining to make a reference for the following reasons:- -: 2 :- "The management has reported that Smt.Vaidehi S. Pathak was appointed as an officer and therefore, Smt.Pathak does not come within the meaning and definition of workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Hence the dispute raised is not maintainable." 3. The short argument advanced before us is that the appropriate Government has exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding the matter on merits and not referring the same for adjudication, in accordance with law. It is a settled proposition of law that while exercising its power under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the appropriate Government cannot adjudicate upon and decide the controversy on merits. On a bare reading of the language of the order, a copy of which is produced, it is clear that the Government has decided the controversy on merits. According to the petitioner, she could have shown by leading evidence before the Labour Court that she was not an officer and was a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A reference has also been made to the interim penalty order dated 5.10.2006 at exh.‘E’ where in paragraph 6, it has been noticed that the petitioner was charged in terms of the Model Standing Orders (Central) -: 3 :- as per the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner. Besides this, the letter of appointment dated 15.9.2000 does not indicate prima facie that the petitioner is not a workman. Resultantly, we are of the considered view that the appropriate Government has exceeded its jurisdiction and has ventured to enter upon the field of adjudication which entirely falls within the realm of the Labour Court. For this reason, we set aside the order dated 16.1.2008 and direct the appropriate Government to consider the matter and make a reference, in accordance with law, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sharad Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ors. [(2002) 4 SCC 490]. 4. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.