Balakrishna Eradi, J.
1. The petitioner herein in the Secretary of the Malamar Motor Transport Employees' Union, Tellichery. The challenge in this writ petition is directed against the communication Ext. P. 3 issued by the State Government to the petitioner as well as to the Manger of the M.R.S. Bus Company, Tellicherry intimating the Government's decision not to refer for adjudication a dispute which formed the subject-matter of certain conciliation proceedings which culminated in a report submitted to the Government by the Labour order Ext. P. 3 reads:
I am directed to inform you that the management terminated the service of the workman at per his own written request, Government do not consider this dispute to be fit for reference to abdication and, therefore, they do not propose to refer the dispute for adjudication.
2. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the Government has not properly exercised its discretion under Section 12(5) of the industrial Disputes Act, since according to the petitioner it is not disclosed by Ext. P. 3 that there has been due applications of the Government's mind to the matters that are germane in taking a decision whether or not a dispute should be referred for adjudication under Suction 12(5) of the Act. It is also used on behalf of the writ petitioner that the statement contained as per his own request is factually incorrect and that hence the reason that influenced the Government in reaching the decision not to refer the matter for adjudication is erroneous.
3. We do not think it can be said in the present case that there has been failure on the part of the Government to apply its mind properly to the question as to whether or not the dispute deserved to be referred for adjudication. Exhibit P. 3 discloses that on a perusal of the records available before the Government it was found that the termination of services of the workman whose cause had been taken up by the petitioner-union had been effected by the Management as per his won request and that hence there was no justification for a reference of the dispurt to a tribunal for adjudication. In a case where the dispute relates to a termination of service of an employee it would certainly b* a matter of relevance to consider whether the termination of service was occasioned by a request made by the employee himself or whether it was done at the instance of the management as a compulsory or disciplinary measure and if it is found that the termination was, in fact, effected pursuant to a request made by the employee himself the request for having the matter referred for adjudication can justifiably be turned down. Hence, it cannot be said that the Government was influenced by any extraneous considerations in passing the order Ext. P3 or that it had failed to consider any matter that was relevant. This Court will not investigate into the correctness of the conclusion of fact reached by the State Government on the question whether the termination of service of the employee was effected on his own request in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The function vested with the Government under Section 12(5) being dependent on its subjective satisfaction this Court is only concerned to find out whether such opinion was in fact reached by the Government in good faith on a consideration of matters that are relevant and uninfluenced by extraneous or mala fide considerations. In the present case we are satisfied that the order Ext. P. 3 was passed by the Government after due application of its mind to matters that are strictly relevant for the purpose of taking a decision under Section 12(5) of the Act. The original petition, therefore, fails and u is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.