http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1924 of 2008

PETITIONER: State of Uttaranchal & Anr

RESPONDENT: Sunil Kumar Singh Negi

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/2008

BENCH: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1924 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3234 of 2007)

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)      Leave granted. 2)      This appeal is directed against the judgment and final  order dated 26.07.2006 passed by the High Court of  Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No.820 of 2005  whereby the High Court dismissed the same affirming the  award of the Labour Court. 3)      Brief facts: The respondent was engaged by the appellant \026 Horticulture  Department as daily wager on 07.09.1987 and thereafter when  the work was available he was engaged from time to time.   However, he did not work for 240 days in any calendar year.   He did not work as daily wager w.e.f. 09.7.1992 of his own.  In  2001, the respondent after about nine years, raised an  industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court,  Dehradun and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 45 of  2001.  On 23.07.2001, the Labour Court directed the  department to reinstate the respondent and to pay him  Rs.5000/- by way of back wages and Rs.1000/- by way of  expenses of the case.  In pursuance of the aforesaid award, Rs.  6000/- was deposited and the respondent was asked to work  as daily wager in Government Fruit Preservation Centre, Pauri  under the Department of Horticulture & Food Processing,  Pauri by letter dated 24.09.2002.  However, the respondent  neither joined in the said Department for quite a long period of  one month nor gave any reply to the said letter.  Instead of  joining the work, the respondent approached the Assistant  Labour Commissioner by filing a petition under the Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947 and lodged a claim of Rs.92,842/- on the  ground that he has not been provided the work and as such  he is entitled to the salary w.e.f. February 2002 to January,  2005.  In the said petition, an objection was filed by the  appellant stating therein that the respondent himself is guilty  of disobedience and he himself did not come to join the place  of work despite the letter dated 24.09.2002.  The Assistant  Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun vide order  dated 1.10.2003 directed the appellant to send one more letter  to the respondent by registered post calling upon him to join  the place of work.  In compliance of the order, a letter was sent  to the respondent on 08.10.2003.  On 31.12.2004, the  Assistant Labour Commissioner himself advised the  respondent to join the work.  Instead of joining the work, the  respondent filed his rejoinder stating therein that the employer

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

has provided the work at Pauri deliberately with a view to  harass him.  On 27.05.2005, the Assistant Labour  Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun directed the  appellant to pay Rs.92,842/- to the respondent holding that  the appellant ought to have reinstated the respondent at the  same place where he was earlier working and from where his  services were terminated and holding that the respondent has  been asked to work at Pauri to nullify the award passed by the  Labour Court.  Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed  Civil Writ Petition (M/S) No. 820 of 2005 in the High Court of  Uttaranchal at Nainital and the same was dismissed on  26.07.2006.  Against the aforesaid order, the appellants  preferred this appeal by way of special leave. 4)      Heard Mr. Abhishek Attrey, learned counsel appearing  for the appellant and Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, learned counsel  appearing for the respondent.  5)      In order to find an answer whether the impugned order of  the High Court is sustainable, it is relevant to refer to the  assertion made by the State of Uttaranchal in their petition  before the High Court.  It was stated that though respondent  No 1 therein was engaged as daily wager on 07.09.1987 and  thereafter when the work was available, he did not work for  240 days in any calendar year.  Pursuant to the award of the  Labour Court dated 23.07.2001, the Horticulture Department  deposited an amount of Rs.6,000/- and the workman was  asked to work as daily wager in Government Food Preservation  Centre, Pauri under the Department of Horticulture and Food  Processing.  He did not join the work as requested but he  approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner by filing a  petition and lodged a claim of Rs.92,842/-.  The Assistant  Labour Commissioner himself advised the workman to join  place of work at Pauri.  However, the worker ignored the  advice of the Assistant Labour Commissioner.  Thereafter, the  very same officer directed the Department to pay Rs.92,842/-  holding that the Department ought to have reinstated the  worker at the same place where his services were terminated.  In several paragraphs, the Department highlighted that the  worker alone was guilty of not joining the place of work despite  repeated letters sent by them as such there was no  justification to award a claim of Rs.92,842/-.  With these  particulars and other details, the Horticulture and Food  Processing Department filed a writ petition NO. 820 of 2005  before the High Court, Uttaranchal.  6)      Now, let us see the impugned order passed by the High  Court, which reads as under: "I have perused the order dated 27.05.2005 passed by respondent  No.2 and I do not find any illegality in the order so as to interfere  under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.  The writ  petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed." In view of the specific stand taken by the Department in the  affidavit which we have referred above, the cryptic order  passed by the High Court cannot be sustained.  The absence  of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable.   Similar view was expressed in State of U.P. vs. Battan and  Ors. (2001) 10 SCC 607).  About two decades back in State of  Maharashtra vs. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, (1981) 4 SCC  129, the desirability of a speaking order was highlighted.  The  requirement of indicating reasons has been judicially  recognized as imperative.  The view was reiterated in Jawahar  Lal Singh vs. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 222.   7)      In Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003)  11 SCC 519, this Court has held that reason is the heartbeat  of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless.   8)      Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound  judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

application of mind to the matter before Court.  Another  rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision  has gone against him.  One of the salutary requirements of  natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made.  9)      In the light of the factual details particularly with  reference to the stand taken by the Horticulture Department  at length in the writ petition and in the light of the principles  enunciated by this Court, namely, right to reason is an  indispensable part of sound judicial system and reflect the  application of mind on the part of the court, we are satisfied  that the impugned order of the High Court cannot be  sustained.  10)     Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court  is set aside and we remit the matter to it for fresh disposal in  accordance with law by a reasoned order.  The appeal is  disposed of.  No costs.  We make it clear that we have not  expressed any opinion on the merits of the case though we  adverted to the grounds taken by the Department in their writ  petition.