A.P.S.R.T.C. vs K. Mangathai and Others

S.B. Sinha, C.J.—This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment dated July 1, 1999 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. The learned single Judge passed the following Order:

"Questioning the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 66/94 whereunder the Tribunal having held that the deceased employee is entitled for reinstatement with back wages after setting aside the order of removal and as the employee died during the pendency of the award, a direction was given to the petitioner-Corporation herein to consider the case of the legal heirs for appointment as if the workman died in harness do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed."

No reason has been assigned in support of the aforementioned decision. It is now a well settled principle of law that assignment of reasons is a part of principles of natural justice. Unless reasons are assigned by a Court or Tribunal, it will not be possible for the higher Court to consider the merit of the said Judgment (see The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another, and S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, .

For the reasons aforementioned the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The matter is remitted back to the learned single Judge for fresh consideration in accordance with law. We may, however, observe that keeping in view the fact that the appellant herein has questioned the award passed by the Labour Court, the appropriate Bench may consider the desirability of hearing out and disposing of the matter at an early date. The learned counsel for the respondents is at liberty to file an application for interim order. The parties are also at liberty to make mention for the early hearing of the writ petition.

The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.