Non-speaking Tribunal orders lacking reasons are unsustainable and may be remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing both sides.

A judicial or quasi-judicial order determining the rights of parties must disclose the reasons and basis for the conclusion reached. An order that merely follows earlier similar matters, without independent examination of the record or discussion of the merits, is a non-speaking order and cannot withstand appellate scrutiny. On that basis, the Tribunal's cryptic order was held unsustainable and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after giving both sides a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order, passed without reasons or discussion and merely following earlier similar matters, was sustainable and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The order of the Tribunal was found to be cryptic and unsupported by any valid reasons or discussion. A judicial or quasi-judicial order deciding rights of parties must disclose the basis of the conclusion. Where the Tribunal disposes of the matter by simply following other cases without independent examination of the record and without assigning reasons, the order cannot be sustained. Since the merits of the controversy were not properly adjudicated, the matter required reconsideration after giving both sides a reasonable opportunity.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A non-speaking order passed without reasons or independent discussion cannot sustain appellate scrutiny and is liable to be set aside with remand for fresh adjudication after hearing the parties.

---