Judgment :- Markandey Katju, CJ. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 25.6.2004. We have carefully perused the impugned order and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioner was the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Oil Seeds Growers' Federation Employees Union (first respondent in this appeal). The petitioner filed a writ petition for quashing the order dated 30.11.2001 issued by the State Government and for quashing the G.O. dated 27.2.2002. Under the first G.O., the Tamil Nadu Government in the Department of Agriculture in purported exercise of jurisdiction under section 182(1) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Act has directed the Commissioner of Agriculture and Registrar of Oil Seeds Growers Co-operative Societies to take appropriate proceedings under section 137 of the said Act. By the subsequent G.O. dated 27.2.2002 the State Government in the Labour and Employment Department has granted permission under section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act to retrench 147 workers employed by the appellant. 3. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition by the impugned order and has quashed the order dated 27.2.2002 granting permission under section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Para 6 of the order dated 27.2.2002 states, "The Government have already examined the various aspects of the issue and observed that Tamil Nadu Co-operative Oilseeds Growers Federation Limited has been continuously running at a loss, there are no prospects for future profitable operations, no scope for earning income through oil extraction from copra and its continuance is not serving the farmers interest in any significant manner. In the circumstances, the Government in public interest have decided for winding up of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Oilseeds Growers Federation Limited and accordingly issued orders in G.O.(Ms) No.345 Agriculture (OS) Department dated 30.11.2001. Hence the application filed by the management of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Oilseeds Growers Federation Limited, Chennai seeking permission for retrenchment of 147 employees is accepted by the Government and accordingly the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Oilseeds Growers Federation Limited, Chennai is permitted to retrench 147 workers and employees as shown in the annexure to this order. The Agriculture Department is requested to pass on all employees all the benefits available within the rules of organisation and also as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That Department is also requested to take steps for the redeployment of employees in wherever agencies possible." 5. The Agriculture Department is requested to pass on all employees all the benefits available within the rules of organisation and also as per Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That Department is also requested to take steps for the redeployment of employees in wherever agencies possible." 5. A perusal of para 6 of the said order dated 27.2.2002 shows that reasons have been given for passing the order namely that the Federation has been continuously running at a loss and there are no prospects for future profitable operations, no scope for earning income through oil extraction from copra and its continuance is not serving farmers interest in any significant manner. We cannot go into the correctness of this decision in writ jurisdiction, as it is an administrative decision. A Division Bench of this Court in Rama Muthuramalingam v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police ( 2004 (5) CTC 554 ) has held that ordinarily the Courts should not interfere with administrative decisions, and should exercise judicial self restraint. 6. Moreover clause (6) of section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act provides, "(6) The appropriate government or the specified authority may, either on its own motion or on the application made by the employer or any workman, review its order granting or refusing to grant permission under sub-section (3) or refer the matter or, as the case may be, cause it to be referred to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where a reference has been made to a Tribunal under this sub-section, it shall pass an award within a period of thirty days from the date of such reference." 7. Thus the writ petitioner had an alternative remedy of approaching the appropriate Government or specified authority under section 25N(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in our opinion the writ petition itself should not have been entertained in view of the recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Indian Additives Ltd. v. Indian Additives Employees' Union ( 2005(1) CTC 1 ). In that decision the rulings of the Supreme Court in U.P.State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.P.Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh (200(4) SCC 268) as well as in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant ( AIR 1995 SC 1715 ) have been relied upon and it has been observed that such writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. In our opinion there is a clear alternative remedy under clause (6) of section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence the writ petition itself should have been straight away dismissed instead of entertaining it. 8. Learned counsel for the first respondent in this appeal had relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen, Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. ( AIR 1994 SC 2696 ) and has referred to para 51 of the judgment. In our opinion the said decision is distinguishable because in para 51 itself it is mentioned that there is no provision for review under section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is obvious that the decision did not take into account the amendment to section 25N by the Act 49 of 1984 which has introduced clause (6) in section 25N by which now there is a provision for review as well as for a reference to the Tribunal. Hence, that decision is clearly distinguishable. 9. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that reasons have not been given in the impugned G.O. dated 27.2.2002 and he has relied on a Supreme Court decision in M/s.Orissa Textile and Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa ( AIR 2002 SC 708 ). We do not agree with this submission because a perusal of the order dated 27.2.2002 clearly indicates that reasons indeed have been given. The reasons are that the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Oilseeds Growers Federation Limited has been continuously running at a loss and there are no prospects for future profitable operations, no scope for earning income through oil extraction from copra and its continuance is not serving the farmers interest in any significant manner. These are clear reasons and we cannot at all accept the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that no reasons have been given. We also cannot sit in appeal over these reasons, since they have been recorded in an administrative decision. As observed in Rama Muthuramalingam's case (supra), the Court cannot sit in appeal over administrative decisions, and must exercise judicial self restraint. 10. The writ appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside, but it is open to the respondents to approach the appropriate Government under clause (6) of section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act. No costs. Consequently WAMP No.241 of 2005 is closed.