DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE PUNJAB & ORS. versus JAGJIVAN PARSHAD

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 31-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 851 
,,,J '-r 
DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE PUNJAB & ORS. 
A 
v. 
JAGJIVAN PARSHAD 
(Civil Appeal No. 2256 of 2008) 
MARCH 31, 2008 
8 
-
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND 
-1 
AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) 
Judgment/Order - Reasoned order - Requirement of -
Dismissal of writ petition by High Court by just referring to part c 
of the award passed by Labour Court - Held: Not sustainable 
- Order shows that basic requirement of indicating reasons 
not kept in view and there was non-application of mind - Hence, 
matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration. 
The respondent-gardner was terminated from D 
service. The Labour Court passed an award that the 
. 
}-
termination was illegal since respondent had worked for 
more than 240 days and workman was entitled to 
reinstatement with 50% back wages, continuity of service 
and other service benefits. High Court dismissed the writ E 
petition holding that for reasons given in the part of the 
award, there was no merit in the writ petition. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter, the 
Court 
F 
~ " 
HELD: 1. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. It 
substitutes subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on 
recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 
'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can by its silence, render G 
it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their 
appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review 
in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason 
• ---.!, 
is an indispensable part of sound judicial system. Another 
851 
H 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A rationale is that the affected party can know why the 
'T ..:-
decision has gone against him. One of the salutary 
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for 
the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The 
'inscrutable face of the sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous 
B with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [Para 8) 
[855-C-E] 
-
Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial 
It-
Bank v. PC. Kakkar 2003 (4) SCC 364 - relied on. 
c 
2.1 The High Court's order goes to show that no 
reason was indicated except making reference to 
paragraph 8 of the Award. The conclusions in the said 
paragraph were assailed in the writ petition. The manner 
of disposal of the writ petition by the High Court leaves 
D much to be desired. Various contentious questions were 
raised which were not considered by the High Court. On 
plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to 
have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order 
~ ~ 
indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when 
E its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The 
manner in which the High Court disposed of the writ 
petition shows that the basic requirement of indicating 
reasons was not kept in view and is a classic case of non-
application of mind. The absence of reasons rendered the 
High Court's judgment not sustainable. Thus, the 
F impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the 
matter is remitted back to it for fresh consideration in 
accordance with law. The High Court would pass a 
.., 
~ 
speaking order recording reasons in support of its 
conclusions. [Paras 4, 5, and 9) [854-D-F; 855-F-G] 
G 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union 1971 (1) All ER 
1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 
(1) CR 120 - referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL No. 
~· 
H 2256 of 2008. 
DIRECTOR, HORTICULTURE PUNJAB & ORS. v. 
853 
JAGJIVAN PARSHAD [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
,,.-
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2005 of 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. 
A 
No. 6622 of 2005. 
Arun K. Sinha, Ajay Pal and Nikhil Jain for the Appellants. 
· Ashok Kumar Sharma for the Respondent. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by a c 
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court 
dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No. 6622 of 2005. Challenge 
in the writ petition was to the Award dated 13.1.2005 passed 
by the labour Court, Jalandhar. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
D 
Respondent was appointed primarily as a Gardner on 
' ).. 
2.2.1989. The order was revoked by the District Welfare Officer 
since the appointment was found contrary to the instructions of 
the Government. Accordingly the services were terminated o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.