Reasoned quasi-judicial orders are essential; unreasoned conclusions were set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

Quasi-judicial orders must contain at least brief reasons to support the conclusions reached and to permit judicial scrutiny; bare conclusions without reasoning cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court did not examine the merits of the dispute or the preliminary objections, and confined itself to the absence of reasons in the impugned orders. The orders were set aside for want of reasons and the matters were remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits, including the preliminary objections.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned orders of the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal could be sustained when they contained no reasons in support of the conclusions reached, and whether the matter was liable to be remanded for reconsideration.

Analysis: Orders passed in quasi-judicial proceedings must disclose at least brief reasons, since such reasons are necessary to support the conclusions and enable proper judicial scrutiny. Where the orders merely record conclusions without reasoning, they cannot be sustained. The Court did not enter into the merits of the dispute or the preliminary objections, and confined itself to the absence of reasons in the impugned orders.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside for want of reasons and the matters were remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits, including the preliminary objections.

---