Reasoned appellate orders are mandatory; a non-speaking tribunal order was set aside and remanded for fresh decision.

A non-reasoned appellate order was found insufficient because it accepted the appeal without analysing the issues or contentions necessary for adjudication. The Supreme Court held that a mere conclusion cannot replace logical reasons, particularly where the Appellate Tribunal acts as the final fact-finding body and must examine both facts and the legal position before deciding. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned non-reasoned appellate order warranted setting aside and remand for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Analysis: The order under challenge had accepted the respondent's appeal without analysing the issues or contentions required for adjudication. A mere conclusion was held insufficient in the absence of logical articulation of reasons. As the Appellate Tribunal functions as the final fact-finding body, it was expected to examine both facts and the legal position before recording the final outcome.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law.

---