that a person is not a "workman" at the time of referring the dispute. The Government function while deciding whether to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act is considered as an administrative function, not a judicial or a quasi-judicial one. This mean, its role is limited to a prima facie examination of whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. Furthermore, whether a person is a workman under the Act is a factual question to be decided by the Labor Court or the Tribunal after the dispute is referred. If there is a genuine dispute about the person's status, the Government should refer the matter for adjudication. In the present case, the specific contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent is not a workman i.e., to say there is a genuine dispute about the third respondent's status. The question of whether a person was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, is a mixed question of fact and law that is required to be adjudicated by the competent Labor Court or the Tribunal after the dispute is referred to them. In the essence, the Government's role is to act as a gateway to the adjudication machinery, not to replace it by deciding core issue of the dispute itself. In the present case, the Government has rightly passed an order of reference.
