Employers In relation to the Management Of Bank Of India, Jharia Branch, Dhanbad vs Subhas Saw

Heard the counsels for the parties.

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 30.03.2015 passed in Reference Case No.48 of 2005 by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad.

From the pleading, it appears that the workman, namely, Subhas Saw has claimed that he was appointed as Driver in the year 1991 and has worked till May, 2004 and accordingly, regularization has been claimed against the said post.

Industrial dispute has been raised and referred vide Reference Order No.48 of 2005, as service of the workman has been stopped contrary to the mandate of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference is as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Dhanbad Zone Dhanbad in terminating Sh. Subhas Saw from the service of the Bank in subordinate cadre i.e. as Driver from May 2004 is justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

The said reference has been answered vide Award dated 30.03.2015 in favour of the workman by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad.

Counsel for the workman has assailed the award mainly on two ground. Firstly reference was only with regard to termination while award has been passed for regularization and secondly, the impugned order is totally unreasoned, as the evidence, brought on record by the parties, has not been discussed.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others {(2010) 9 SCC 496} especially para-47, which is quoted hereinbelow:

"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process"."

Thus from perusal of the impugned award dated 30.03.2015, it is evident that the award is totally unreasoned order. It is trite that the reasoned order is sine-qua-non in the rule of law. Any unreasoned order is not acceptable in the rule of law.

Counsel for the respondent has supported the award but could not dispute that the award is totally unreasoned.

In view of the above fact and judicial pronouncement, the impugned award dated 30.03.2015 is, hereby, quashed.

The matter is remanded to the concerned Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad for taking a fresh decision, after hearing both sides.

The entire exercise must be completed within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

It is expected that both the parties will co-operate with the concerned Tribunal.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed.

Pending, I.A. stands disposed of.