- (1.) THOUGH the matter was listed today on the application moved under clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter was heard finally.
(2.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 8.10.2001 (Annex. 4) by which the appropriate Government has withdrawn the case from Labour Court, Jodhpur and transferred the same to Labour Court, Kota in exercise of its powers under Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947). THE grievance raised by the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed without issuing any notice to him and no reason has been recorded by the appropriate Government while transferring the said case. Thus, the order is liable to be quashed. There can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order (vide Ku. Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1). In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre, (2), the Apex Court observed that the State or its instrumentality must not take any irrelevant or irrational factor into consideration or appear arbitary in its decision. "Duty to act fairly" is part of fair procedure envisaged under Articles 14 and 21. Every activity of the public authority or those under public duty must be received and guided by the public interest. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and others (3) and Union of India vs. M.L. Capoor (4). In State of West Bengal vs. Atul Krishna Shaw, (5), the Supreme Court observed that "giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensible part of sound system of judicial review."
(3.) IN S.N. Mukherji vs. Union of INdia (6), it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent mis-carriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The expanding horizen of the principles of natural justice provides for requirement to record reasons as it is now regarded as one of the principles of natural justice, and it was held in the above case that except in cases where the requirement to record reasons is expressly or by necessary implication dispensed with, the authority must record reasons for its decision. In Krishna Swamy vs. Union of India (7), the Apex Court observed that the rule of law requires that any action or decision of a statutory or public authority must be founded on the reason stated in the order of borne-out from the record. The Court further observed that "reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for these erection and the actual conclusions. They would also administer how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and there rational nexus and syntheses with the facts considered and the conclusion reached. Lest it may not be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violate Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21." Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K. Ratna & Ors. (8), Board of Trustees of the Post of Bombay vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Gavendranath Nadkarni & Ors. (9), Vasant D. Bhavsar vs. Bar Council of India & Ors., (10) and Charan Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. (11), Similar view has been taken by this Court in Rameshwari Devi Mewara vs. State of Raj. & Ors., (12). ;