State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, (SC) BS143392
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1924 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3234 of 2007). D/d. 12.3.2008.

State of Uttaranchal & Anr. - Appellant

Versus

Sunil Kumar Singh Negi - Respondent

For the Appellants :- Abhishek Attrey and Anuvrat Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- Puneet Aggrawal and Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates.

A. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Cryptic order - High Court affirmed the award passed by Labour Court by passing a cryptic order - Order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained - Matter remitted for fresh disposal.

[Paras 9 and 10]

B. Administration of justice - Absence of reasons in the judgment - Order not sustainable - Principle enumerated :-

[Paras 6 to 9]

Cases Referred :-

State of U.P. v. Battan, (2001)10 SCC 607).

State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981)4 SCC 129.

Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh, (1987)2 SCC 222.

Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 935 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 672 : (2003)11 SCC 519.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 26.07.2006 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No.820 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the same affirming the award of the Labour Court.

3. Brief facts :

4. Heard Mr. Abhishek Attrey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. In order to find an answer whether the impugned order of the High Court is sustainable, it is relevant to refer to the assertion made by the State of Uttaranchal in their petition before the High Court. It was stated that though respondent No 1 therein was engaged as daily wager on 07.09.1987 and thereafter when the work was available, he did not work for 240 days in any calendar year. Pursuant to the award of the Labour Court dated 23.07.2001, the Horticulture Department deposited an amount of Rs. 6,000/- and the workman was asked to work as daily wager in Government Food Preservation Centre, Pauri under the Department of Horticulture and Food Processing. He did not join the work as requested but he approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner by filing a petition and lodged a claim of Rs. 92,842/-. The Assistant Labour Commissioner himself advised the workman to join place of work at Pauri. However, the worker ignored the advice of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Thereafter, the very same officer directed the Department to pay Rs. 92,842/- holding that the Department ought to have reinstated the worker at the same place where his services were terminated. In several paragraphs, the Department highlighted that the worker alone was guilty of not joining the place of work despite repeated letters sent by them as such there was no justification to award a claim of Rs. 92,842/-. With these particulars and other details, the Horticulture and Food Processing Department filed a writ petition NO. 820 of 2005 before the High Court, Uttaranchal.

6. Now, let us see the impugned order passed by the High Court, which reads as under :

7. In Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 935 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 672 : (2003) 11 SCC 519, this Court has held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless.

8. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made.

9. In the light of the factual details particularly with reference to the stand taken by the Horticulture Department at length in the writ petition and in the light of the principles enunciated by this Court, namely, right to reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system and reflect the application of mind on the part of the court, we are satisfied that the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained.

10. Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court is set aside and we remit the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance with law by a reasoned order. The appeal is disposed of. No costs. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case though we adverted to the grounds taken by the Department in their writ petition.

Appeal disposed of.