AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent-Workman, in spite of filing Vakalatnama.
The very question has been raised in the present writ petition as to present impugned award dated 27.03.2014 passed in Reference No.85 of 2005 by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad is totally unreasoned and as such, is not sustainable in the eye of law.
It appears that the Union has raised a dispute regarding grant of employment to one of the dependent of late Sri Shanta Singh, Senior Overman. The terms of reference being Reference No.85 of 2005 is as follow:-
"Whether the demand of Bahujan Mazdoor Union from the management of Tisco to grant employment to one of the dependents of Late Sh. Santa Singh, Senior overman, Tisco on compassionate ground is justified? If so, to what relief is/are the said dependent(s) entitled?"
The said reference has been answered in favour of the Workman vide impugned order dated 27.03.2014.
The petitioner was directed to produce entire order sheet. In compliance of the same, entire order sheet has been annexed by filing supplementary affidavit.
From perusal of the entire order sheet, it appears that vide order dated 03.10.2013, the employer was directed to enter the name of the claimant in the dependent register. Thereafter, on next date, award has been reserved and finally, it has been passed vide order dated 27.03.2014. Entire award is quoted hereinbelow:-
" By Order No.L-12011/72/2000-IR(B-II), dated 17/07/2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Bahujan Mazdoor Union from the management of Tisco to grant employment to one of the dependents of Late Sh. Santa Singh, Senior overman, Tisco on compassionate ground is justified? If so, to what relief is/are the said dependent(s) entitled?"
The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on 28.11.2005. After notice both parties appeared, the Sponsoring Union files their written statement on 07.12.2005. Thereafter the management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 06.07.2006. Only one witness is examined on behalf of the workman.
The short point involved in this case, that this is a case of dependent employment. Admittedly the workman died while he was in job. Management disputed that the workman has not died during the course of his employment. Though the applicant has specifically pleaded that the workman died while on duty. That has not been specifically denied by the management.
Moreover the applicant has stated that his name was recorded in medical register as dependent of the deceased workman and that fact has not been specifically denied by the management. This being the position, there is no impediment to give the dependent employment.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that the demand of Bahujan Mazdoor Union from the management of Tisco to grant employment to one of the dependent of late Shri Shanta Singh, senior overman Tisco on compassionate ground is justified. Hence it is ordered to give employment to one of the dependent who will be found suitable after proper verification as per norms.
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 27.03.2014, 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. In view of the above fact and judicial pronouncement, impugned award order dated 27.03.2014 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 a year 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.