The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday quashed and set aside the presiding officer’s order with the observation that “non-speaking order always leads to arbitrariness and if arbitrariness is present, equality is always absent”.
A single-judge bench of Justice S.N. Pathak passed this judgment while disposing the petition filed by Md. Moizuddin through Advocate A.K. Sahani with a prayer for quashing the award dated 25.04.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No. 96 of 1998, whereby the Tribunal erroneously directed the enrolment of the name of the workman at the bottom of Category II.
The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award is non-speaking, cryptic, vague, capricious and unreasoned award. He further submits that the tribunal without appreciating the evidences and documents, brought on record, had passed the impugned award and as such, for the ends of justice, same may be quashed and set aside and the matter may kindly be remitted back to the concerned tribunal for reconsideration.
A.K. Das, counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Coalfields Limited, Bokaro, vehemently opposes the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the entire case of the petitioner is beyond the terms of reference. It is the case of promotion and petitioner is not entitled for the same. However, regarding the contents/ findings of the award, counsel for the respondent remained silent.
The Court while going through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the documents brought on record, held that impugned award is a non-speaking order as no reasons have been assigned. The impugned order is capricious and whimsical and has been passed in a mechanical manner. “The learned tribunal without dealing with any evidences and documents, had passed the impugned award. Non-speaking order always leads to arbitrariness and if arbitrariness is present, equality is always absent.”
“As a cumulative effect of the observations, rules, guidelines and the judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the considered view that dated 25.04.2014 is not at all tenable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for reconsidering the same and to pass a fresh award, after taking evidences and documents lead by both the parties, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,”
-the Court ordered while disposing the petition.