An order of reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is an administrative act and the Government is not bound to give reasons for its decision. The principles of natural justice are not attracted to such an order, as it does not involve any civil consequences.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

This Writ appeal is directed against the order of Padmanabhan, J., in W.P. No. 447 of 1982. The petitioner to the writ petition is the appellant in the writ appeal and the respondents therein are the respondents in the writ appeal and the parties shall be referred to in this judgment by their application in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed to quash the order passed by the first respondent under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, referring for adjudication to the second respondent an industrial dispute between the petitioner and its workmen with reference to non-employment of respondents 3 to 6. The preceding facts are as follows :-

On 20th October, 1980, the petitioner suspended respondents 3 to 6, who were it workmen. Pursuant to a resolution passed on 2nd January, 1981, relating to certain demands, including reinstatement of the suspended workmen, the Union of the workmen, the seventh respondent, issued a strike notice on 12th January, 1981. On 28th January, 1981, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, requested the seventh respondent not to resort to strike and the petitioner was called upon to submit its representations with regard to the demands raised. On 29th January, 1981, the said Assistant Commissioner of Labour held conciliation talks. Concilation did not fructify and the Assistant Commissioner of labour was obliged to send his failure report on 31st January, 1981 to the first respondent and his report was received by the first respondent on 4th February, 1981. On 14th February, 1981, the petitioner dismissed respondents 3, 5, and 6 and with regard to the fourth respondent, the suspension already imposed on him was treated as punishment and he got into service. It is claimed that on 27th February, 1981, the seventh respondent made a representation to the first respondent with copies to the Commissioner of Labour, Madras, and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore. From the files produced before us, we find that a representation from the seventh respondent, though not bearing a date, had in fact been received by the first respondent on 11th March, 1981 and by the Commissioner of Labour, Madras, on 13th March, 1981. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour seemed to have addressed a communication on 16th April, 1981 to the seventh respondent and the seventh respondent gave a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 21st April, 1981 and marked copies to the Commissioner of Labour, Madras, and the first respondent. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour had called upon the petitioner and the seventh respondent to appear before him on 30th April, 1981, for talks. There is a dispute with regard to the date of the communication, as to whether it was 21st April, 1981 or 23rd April, 1981. But that does not matter much since the fact remains that a communication emanated from the Assistant Commissioner of Labour calling the parties for talks on 30th April, 1981 and the parties received such communication. On 30th April, 1981, the seventh respondent was not present and the petitioner alone appeared. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour addressed a further communication on 6th May, 1981, calling upon the parties to appear for talks on 11th May, 1981. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour furnished to the petitioner a copy of the representation dated 21st April, 1981, of the seventh respondent and the petitioner made his reply on 13th May, 1981. There is no dispute that there were talks and discussions held by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, in which the petitioner and the seventh respondent, representing the workmen participated. The talks did not fructify. The Commissioner of Labour also seemed to have addressed a communication to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, on 11th May, 1981. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour sent his confidential report on 25th May, 1981, to the Commissi