DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE PUNJAB & ORS.versusJAGJIVAN PARSHAD

                                  [2008] 5 S.C.R. 851


,,,J '-r          DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE PUNJAB & ORS.                           A
                                       v.
                              JAGJIVAN PARSHAD
                        (Civil Appeal No. 2256 of 2008)
                                   MARCH 31, 2008
                                                                                 8

-    -1
                  [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND
                              AFTAB ALAM, JJ.)

                  Judgment/Order - Reasoned order - Requirement of -
            Dismissal of writ petition by High Court by just referring to part   c
            of the award passed by Labour Court - Held: Not sustainable
            - Order shows that basic requirement of indicating reasons
            not kept in view and there was non-application of mind - Hence,
            matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration.
                  The respondent-gardner was terminated from D

  .   }-
            service. The Labour Court passed an award that the
            termination was illegal since respondent had worked for
            more than 240 days and workman was entitled to
            reinstatement with 50% back wages, continuity of service
            and other service benefits. High Court dismissed the writ E
            petition holding that for reasons given in the part of the
            award, there was no merit in the writ petition. Hence the
            present appeal.
                Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter, the
            Court                                                                F


~    "            HELD: 1. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. It
            substitutes subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on
            recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the
            'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can by its silence, render
                                                                            G
            it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their
            appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review
            in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason
 • ---.!,   is an indispensable part of sound judicial system. Another
                                           851                                   H
    852      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A rationale is that the affected party can know why the          'T     ..:-
  decision has gone against him. One of the salutary
  requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for
  the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The
  'inscrutable face of the sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous
B with  a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [Para 8)
  [855-C-E]
        Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial
                                                                  It-       -
    Bank v. PC. Kakkar 2003 (4) SCC 364 - relied on.

      2.1 The High Court's order goes to show that no
c reason  was indicated except making reference to
  paragraph 8 of the Award. The conclusions in the said
  paragraph were assailed in the writ petition. The manner
  of disposal of the writ petition by the High Court leaves
  much to be desired. Various contentious questions were
D
  raised which were not considered by the High Court. On
  plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to
                                                                  ~         ~
  have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order
  indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when
  its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The
E manner in which the High Court disposed of the writ
  petition shows that the basic requirement of indicating
  reasons was not kept in view and is a classic case of non-
  application of mind. The absence of reasons rendered the
  High Court's judgment not sustainable. Thus, the
F impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the
  matter is remitted back to it for fresh consideration in
  accordance with law. The High Court would pass a                    ..,       ~




  speaking order recording reasons in support of its
  conclusions. [Paras 4, 5, and 9) [854-D-F; 855-F-G]
G
        Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union 1971 (1) All ER
    1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974
    (1) CR 120 - referred to.
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL No.                 ~·
H 2256 of 2008.
            DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE PUNJAB & ORS. v.                  853
              JAGJIVAN PARSHAD [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

  ,,.-        From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2005 of A
         the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P.
         No. 6622 of 2005.
              Arun K. Sinha, Ajay Pal and Nikhil Jain for the Appellants.
             · Ashok Kumar Sharma for the Respondent.                       B
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
               2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by a
         Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court                c
         dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No. 6622 of 2005. Challenge
         in the writ petition was to the Award dated 13.1.2005 passed
         by the labour Court, Jalandhar.
              3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:             D
                Respondent was appointed primarily as a Gardner on
' )..    2.2.1989. The order was revoked by the District Welfare Officer
         since the appointment was found contrary to the instructions of
         the Government. Accordingly the services were terminated on
         25.1.1997. On a complaint being made by the respondent on E
         11.5.1999. the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh
         Bench referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court
         under Section 10(1 )(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
         short the 'Act'). The Labour Court by Award dated 13.1.2005
         held that the termination was illegal and that the workman was F
         entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages, continuity of
         service and other service benefits. A writ petition was filed
         challenging the Award.
               The Labour Court found that though the claim was that the
         respondent had not worked for 240 days in any twelve calendar G
         months preceding the date of termination, yet finding was
         recorded that the absence from service on Sundays and holidays
         have to be taken into account. Accordingly the Labour Court
         held that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days.
         The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding as follows: H
    854       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 5 S.C.R.


A         "For the reasons given in the paragraph No. 8 of the Award,
          we find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed."
       Stand of learned counsel for the appellant is that the High
  Court's order is non-reasoned and the conclusions in paragraph
  8 to which reference has been made in the High Court's
B impugned order do not reflect the factual position clearly.
  Reference is made to Exh. M2 series to show that during the
  period from February 1996 to January, 1997 and February 1995
  to January 1996 the respondent had worked much less than
  240 days, It is submitted that the onus is on the respondent to
C prove that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year
  preceding the termination.
          Learned counsel for the respondent on the other supported
    the impugned order of the High Court. .
D       4. As the quoted portion of the High Court's order goes to
  show that no reason was indicated except making reference to
  paragraph 8 of the Award. The conclusions in the said paragraph
  were assailed in the writ petition. The manner of disposal of the
  writ petition by the High Court leaves much to be desired. Various
E contentious questions were raised including one relating to
  whether the appellant could be treated as an industry. These
  aspects were not considered by the High Court.
        5. Reasons introduce clarity In an order. On plainest
  consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth
F its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an
  application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable
  to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has
  rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
G       6. We find that the writ petition involved disputed issues
  regarding eligibility. The manner in which the High Court has
  disposed of the writ petition shows that the basic requirement
  of indicating reasons was not kept in view and is a classic case
  of non-application of mind. This Court in several cases has
H indicated the necessity for recording reasons.
DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE PUNJAB & ORS. v.       855
  JAGJIVAN PARSHAD [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]