https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176710 The court held that a conciliation officer acting under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must provide reasons for their decisions as they exercise quasi-judicial functions. Failure to give reasons renders the order invalid, as it hampers effective judicial review. The court emphasized that transparency and accountability are ensured through providing reasons, preventing arbitrary decisions. The absence of reasons in such orders invalidates them, as it impedes effective judicial scrutiny. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Dec 2015 17:03:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176710 The court held that a conciliation officer acting under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, must provide reasons for their decisions as they exercise quasi-judicial functions. Failure to give reasons renders the order invalid, as it hampers effective judicial review. The court emphasized that transparency and accountability are ensured through providing reasons, preventing arbitrary decisions. The absence of reasons in such orders invalidates them, as it impedes effective judicial scrutiny. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176710