2017 (11) TMI 2021

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocate. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent workmen. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the award dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No.1), Dhanbad whereby the management of the Eastern Railway, Danapur has been directed to give employment to 37 workmen within two months failing which each of 37 workmen will be entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- per month from the petitioners. 3. Vide order dated 21.08.2002, the Central Government, in exercise of its power conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y grant time without imposing Rs.10,000/- as ordered supra, as otherwise the order passed above will be enforceable on the 61th day." 6. Assailing the aforesaid award dated 29.04.2015, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the award passed by Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law. He submitted that reference made by the Central Government has not been answered by the Tribunal and without answering the reference, a direction has been given to the petitioner to absorb 37 workmen in service within 60 days failing which each of 37 workmen will be entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- per month from the petitioners. He submitted that the award passed by the Tribunal would also refle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e as to whether or not the action of management of Eastern Railway in denying absorption of workmen was justified, has not been answered. The Tribunal has not discussed the case of the parties, the oral and documentary evidences led before it and the arguments advanced by the parties before passing the award. The award is neither speaking nor reasoned. 10. In S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594], the Supreme Court held that irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review, the recording of reasons by an administrative authority by itself serves a statutory purpose viz., it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. ....