Banswara Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti vs The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and Others

Ajit Singh, J.—This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dt. 3.9.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant''s writ petition No. 3384/2002, and confirmed the orders as passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and other authority. The main contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that since it is a cooperative society and has only 22 employees on regular side, it is excluded from the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

But the learned Single Judge, without mentioning the facts and grounds taken in the writ petition in the order, has dismissed the writ petition merely by saying that he is satisfied with the concurrent findings given by the authorities below. Apparently, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is cryptic and contain no reasons whatsoever, which cannot be sustained under law. In Flannery vs. Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd., , (2000) 1 All ER 373 at pages 377 and 378 (CA) comments have been made that the duty to give reasons "is function of due process and, therefore, of justice. Its rationale has two principal aspects. The first is that fairness surely requires that the parties especially the losing party should be left in no doubt why they have won or lost. The second is that a requirement to give reasons concentrates the mind and if it is fulfilled the resulting decision is much more likely to be soundly based".

We accordingly set aside the order dt. 03.09.2003 and remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for afresh decision. As the matter is very old, it is expected that the same will be placed before the learned Single Judge on priority basis so that it is decided on an early date. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.