THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 21838 of 2000 Dated: 02.12.2010 Between: Inspector of Sericulture, Adilabad District and another. ..... PETITIONERS AND Borkuta Bheem Rao, Adilabad District and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 21838 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the Award dated 10.7.2000 in I.D.No.137 of 1997 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent herein. The said I.D.No.137 of 1997 was filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming that he was working as a casual labour under the direct control of the Department of Sericulture at Saleguda, Adilabad District and that his services were illegally terminated on 6.5.1995. The Department (the petitioners herein) filed a detailed counter contending that the petitioner was appointed by the Project Director, ITDA, Utnoor and that they were not at all concerned with his services. In support of the said plea, they have also produced Exs.M-1 to M-5 documents. However the Tribunal by Award dated 10.07.2000 directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service without back-wages and without continuity of service. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and Co-operation appearing for the petitioners. Despite notice, the 1st respondent did not choose to appear. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the impugned award which was passed without taking into consideration the specific stand taken by the writ petitioners that the 1st respondent workman was not working with them and without recording any reasons for directing reinstatement is arbitrary and illegal. It is clear from the impugned award that the Tribunal below had neither formulated the points for consideration nor recorded any finding that the workman was in the service of the writ petitioners. It is also apparent that there was no oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the workman to establish his claim. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the workman, it is un-understandable how the Tribunal below had accepted the plea that the alleged termination of the workman was unjustified. The conclusion of the Tribunal below is not supported by any reasons whatsoever. Such cryptic order, which is not substantiated by any reasons, cannot be sustained in law. It is a well-settled principle of law that absence of reasons is one of the grounds for judicial review since the failure of the quasi-judicial authority to assign reasons would result in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Accordingly, the impugned Award is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal below to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 02.12.2010 KLP