2017 (11) TMI 2021 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of action of the management of Eastern Railway, Danapur in denying absorption of workmen S/Shri Brajesh Kishore Sinha and others - HELD THAT - In SN. MUKHERJEE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1990 (8) TMI 345 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court held that irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review, the recording of reasons by an administrative authority by itself serves a statutory purpose viz., it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. It is well settled by now that reason is the life of law. It is an indispensable component of a decision making process. A nonspeaking and non-reasoned order smacks arbitrary exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial or even administrative power. The impugned award cannot be sustained - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Denial of absorption of workmen by the management of Eastern Railway, Lack of application of judicial mind in passing the award, Non-speaking and non-reasoned award, Failure to discuss oral and documentary evidence, Failure to consider the preliminary objection raised by the Eastern Railway, Need for reasons in administrative decisions, Requirement of giving reasons in support of conclusions in industrial dispute awards, Importance of a reasoned decision-making process, Setting aside of the impugned award and remitting the matter for fresh adjudication.

Quashing of the Award:
The writ petition was filed to quash the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, which directed the management of Eastern Railway, Danapur, to provide employment to 37 workmen within two months. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal's award was not sustainable in law as it did not address the reference made by the Central Government and lacked the application of judicial mind. The Tribunal did not discuss the evidence presented or the pleadings made by the petitioners, resulting in a non-speaking and non-reasoned award. The Eastern Railway's objection regarding the staleness of the workmen's claim was also not considered. The High Court found merit in the petitioner's submissions and set aside the award, emphasizing the importance of reasons in decision-making processes.

Denial of Absorption of Workmen:
The reference made by the Central Government questioned the justification of the management of Eastern Railway in denying absorption of workmen. Despite this core issue, the Tribunal did not provide a clear answer to the reference. The Tribunal failed to discuss the case, oral and documentary evidence, and arguments presented by the parties. This lack of reasoning and justification in the award led to its quashing by the High Court. The Court highlighted the necessity of addressing the core issues raised in references and providing reasoned decisions to prevent arbitrariness.

Lack of Application of Judicial Mind:
The petitioners contended that the Tribunal's award lacked the application of a judicial mind as it did not discuss the evidence, pleadings, or objections raised by the parties. The High Court agreed with this argument, emphasizing that a reasoned decision is essential to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary exercise of power. The failure to consider and analyze the facts and submissions before issuing a direction for employment undermined the validity of the award.

Non-speaking and Non-reasoned Award:
The High Court criticized the Tribunal's award for being non-speaking and non-reasoned. The lack of discussion on the evidence, pleadings, and objections rendered the award arbitrary and unfair. Citing legal precedents, the Court highlighted the importance of providing reasons to support conclusions in administrative and industrial dispute awards. A just and reasoned conclusion not only upholds justice but also ensures the appearance of justice to all parties involved.

Setting Aside of the Award and Remitting for Fresh Adjudication:
Based on the principles established by legal precedents, the High Court set aside the impugned award and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The Court stressed the need for a reasoned decision-making process to maintain fairness and prevent arbitrariness in administrative and judicial proceedings. The Tribunal was directed to reexamine the reference and issue a decision in accordance with the law within a specified timeframe to uphold the principles of justice and due process.