K. Veeraswami, C.J:— This petition has been placed before a Division Bench because of difference of opinion between Rajagopalan, J, in Radhakrishna Mills (Pollachi), Ltd. v. State of Madras, [A.I.R 1956 Mad. 113], and Ramaprasada Rao, J., in Writ Petition No. 3624 of 1970 (K. Abdul Salam and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1973 - I L.L.N 306], Rajagopalao, J., held that principles of natural justice could not be invoked in respect of an administrative order. Ramaprasada Rao, J., took a different view. It seems to us that, as Courts were inclined to look upon matters in 1956, we cannot say that Rajagopalan, J., was wrong. But since then, the line of difference between a quasi-judicial order and an administrative order was getting thinner and thinner. That was the reason why in A.K Kraipak v. Union of India, [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : A.I.R 1970 S.C 113], the Supreme Court pointed out that the question whether principles of natural justice would apply to an administrative order would depend on several factors pointed out therein, including the nature of the power and the circumstances and the issues involved as well as the decision in relation thereto.
2. In this particular case, we find no difficulty at all in holding that the impugned order of the Government in Memorandum No. 60193-A2/70-2, dated 17 November, 1970, is not valid. What happened was this. By non-extension of the workman's temporary service, there was cessation in service. The question was whether it affected his conditions of service, which the management should not have attempted when an industrial dispute was pending. On a complaint by the workman, the Industrial Tribunal was of the view that the conditions of service were not affected. In coming to that conclusion, it pointed out that the non-employment was not due to any termination of the workmen's services, but to non-extension of temporary service. When the first respondent workman raised an industrial dispute, it underwent conciliation proceedings which having failed, the Government was asked to make a reference which they declined. While making an order to that effect, the Government in their order, dated 29 August, 1970, pointed out that, if the workman was not satisfied with the award of the Industrial Tribunal in Com-plaint No. 10 of 1968, in Industrial Dispute No. 88 of 1967, he might seek such other remedy, if if so advised, as might be open to him to challenge the award. It was not an end to the matter. The workman filed a petition three months later, on which the Government purported to reconsider the earlier order refusing to make a reference and refer the issue of non-employment of the workmen. It is this order which is sought to be quashed.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that in the particular circumstances principles of natural justice require that notice should have been given to the management. We accept this contention as correct. Principles of natural justice, in the present context, mean fairness, and the rule of law, which is envisaged, includes fairness in administrative orders as well. When the Government relied on the reasoning of the Industrial Tribunal in its order in the complaint under S. 3-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, we think they acted rightly. But, when they desired to reconsider, it is but proper and fair that, before they did so, notice was given to the management, so that it might have its say to the contrary. That fairness was not extended in this case.
4. On that view, it is not necessary for us to decide the wider question whether principles of natural justice will apply to every administrative order. The petition is allowed. No costs.