Reasoned tribunal orders and full appellate jurisdiction are required; unreasoned jurisdictional error justifies remittal for fresh decision.

A statutory tribunal exercising appellate jurisdiction must decide all material issues through a reasoned, self-contained order that identifies the points for determination, the reasons for each conclusion and the result. Its jurisdiction extends beyond narrow judicial review to questions of fact, law, legality, propriety and correctness, so a misconstruction of that width of power is a legal error. Where an order omits vital issues, gives inadequate reasons and proceeds on an erroneous view of jurisdiction, it lacks the essential attributes of a judgment and is liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order, rendered without adequate reasons and on an understanding of its own statutory jurisdiction, could be sustained and whether the matter had to be remitted for fresh decision.

Analysis: The statutory tribunal was required to decide the dispute on the basis of its own wide appellate jurisdiction under the governing statute, which extended to questions of fact, law, legality, propriety and correctness. Its function was not confined to the narrow limits of judicial review. A tribunal exercising statutory appellate power must give a reasoned, self-contained decision stating the points for determination, the reasons for those conclusions and the decision thereon. The impugned order failed this standard: several vital issues were not addressed, some were not even noticed, and others were answered without adequate reasoning or supporting material. The tribunal also proceeded on an erroneous premise about the scope of its jurisdiction and thereby misdirected itself in law. Because the order lacked the essential attributes of a judgment and was vitiated by jurisdictional misunderstanding, the Court declined to examine the merits itself.

Conclusion: The order could not be sustained and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the Tribunal's decision was set aside and the dispute was sent back for a de novo adjudication by the statutory forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tribunal exercising appellate jurisdiction must decide all material issues by a reasoned order within the full width of the jurisdiction conferred by the statute; an order that is unreasoned or based on a misconstruction of that jurisdiction is liable to be set aside and remitted.

---