Duty to give reasons in quasi-judicial orders under industrial law strengthens judicial review and bars arbitrariness.

A conciliation officer exercising quasi-judicial powers under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act must give reasons on the face of the order. The article explains that the duty to record reasons arises from the rule of law, the need to decide on relevant material without arbitrariness, and the requirement to enable effective judicial review. It also treats an order refusing approval under Section 33(2)(b) as a separate and final order affecting the employer's right to discharge a workman, and therefore one that must be supported by a speaking order.

---

---

Issues: Whether a conciliation officer acting under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while exercising quasi-judicial functions, is bound to make a speaking order by stating reasons on the face of the order.

Analysis: The requirement to give reasons was held to flow from the rule of law and from the nature of quasi-judicial decision-making, which demands decision on relevant material, application of legal norms, and exclusion of arbitrariness. Reasons were also treated as necessary to make judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 effective, because without reasons a superior court cannot examine legality or error of law. The order refusing approval under Section 33(2)(b) was further held not to be merely interlocutory but a separate and final order affecting the employer's right to discharge the workman, and therefore one that must be supported by reasons.

Conclusion: Yes. A conciliation officer exercising quasi-judicial powers under Section 33(2)(b) is bound to state reasons in the order and must make a speaking order.

Ratio Decidendi: Every administrative authority performing quasi-judicial functions must give reasons in support of its decision, particularly where the decision is subject to judicial review.

---