AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Before this Court, Award dated 18.02.2014 passed in Reference Case No. 71 of 2006 has been challenged by both i.e. employer as well as employee.
Employee has filed a writ petition being W. P. (L) No. 3998 of 2014 and Employer has filed a writ petition being W. P. (L) No. 1108 of 2015 against the Award dated 18.02.2014 and as such, both the writ petitions are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
It appears that the concerned workman has claimed promotion to Category-B w.e.f. 01.01.1995 and to Category-A w.e.f. 01.01.1998. An Industrial Dispute has been raised and has been referred as Reference No. 71 of 2006.
Terms of reference reads as under:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress from the management of BCCL, Barora Area-I that Sh. Rajendra Beldar be promoted to grade "B" w.e.f. 01.01. 95 and to Gr. "A" w.e.f. 01.01.98 justified? If so to what relief is the workman entitled?"
Reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding that the concerned workman is entitled for promotion to Category "B" w.e.f. 29.10.1997 and to Category "A" w.e.f. 08.10.2000, but monetary benefit has been denied.
Denial of monetary benefit has been challenged by the workman and the entire Award has been challenged by the Management.
Perused the Award.
Award is of the four paragraphs. Neither the entitlement of the workman nor evidence on record has been discussed and as such, the Award is totally unreasoned one.
Learned 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 reported in (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 18.02.2014, it is evident that the same is totally unreasoned order.
It is trite that reasoned order is sine-qua-non in a system governed by the rule of law. Any unreasoned order is not acceptable.
In view of the above fact and judicial pronouncement, the impugned Award dated 18.02.2014 passed in Reference Case No. 71 of 2006 is, hereby, quashed. The matter is remanded to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad for passing a fresh Award after giving due opportunity to the parties.
It is expected that proceeding will be completed within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the concerned Tribunal.
With the above observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand allowed.