1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.12 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5303 2006 Kancast Private Limited and Ors. .... Appellants. V/s Kancast Kayam Kamgar Sanghatana and anr. ..... Respondents. ----- Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Counsel along with Mr. K.S. Bapat and Mr. Jayesh Desai i/b M/s. Desai & Desai Associates for the appellants. Mr. S.B. Bomble Deshmukh for the respondents. ----- CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M.KANADE, J. DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.: 1. The Union under the name and style of Kancast Kayam Kamgar Sanghatana filed a complaint under section 28(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 praying that wages and salaries, as calculated by the Court, should be paid to the members of the Union and it should be declared that the respondent - Company Kancast Private Limited was engaged in unfair labour practices. This complaint came to be dismissed by 2 the order of Industrial Court dated 13/01/2006, Pune. The Union which claims to be a duly registered Union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 filed a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside of that order and also prayed for interim orders. In the Writ Petition, various grounds have been taken including that the unfair labour practices were adopted by the Company and that the members of the Union were forced to sit idle without giving any work and that they were not being paid any wages. It may be noticed that in the Writ Petition and in the complaint, no reference had been made to any settlement between the workmen and the management having been executed or even entered upon. When this Petition came up for hearing and, upon notice, the respondents appeared and they claimed to have filed a detailed reply. When the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.5303 of 2006 on 24/1/2008, the learned Single Judge passed the following order:- "P.C. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Union. 2. Rule. The Respondents waive service. 3. By way of interim relief it is 3 directed that the balance amount of Rs 2 Crores, 11 lacs shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court by the Respondent No.1 Company represented by Shri Ashok Kashmirilal Agarwal within a period of four weeks from today. The said amount be invested in fixed deposit with a nationalized Bank initially for a period of one week. 4. Liberty to apply for early hearing." This order is challenged in the present appeal before us by the appellant - company, saying that the direction issued against the appellant herein to deposit Rs 2.11 crores is without giving any reasons, grounds and in fact is unjustified in law. Inter alia, it is contended (a) that the order does not give any reason whatsoever for passing such interim order, which seriously affects the rights of the parties to the lis and (b) that the absence of reasoning in a judicial order would vitiate the order and the same would be liable to be set aside in appeal. The reliance is also placed on the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Pipe Arts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gangadhar N. Golmare, Pune reported in 2008 II CLR 228. In the reply filed, detailed submissions were made as to why the Writ Petition itself should be dismissed and, in any case, there is no need of issuing any interim directions. It was 4 stated in the reply as well as argued before us that the General Secretary of the Union had played fraud, if not, atleast misrepresentation was made before the Court that a settlement was duly executed between the parties and, in fact, given effect to as well. A copy of the same has been placed at Exhibit- I from page 149 onwards in the paper- book. Legal and even the factual matrix of the case and the ground taken by the Company have not been discussed in the impugned order. Such an order suffers from infirmity, being contrary to the basis principles of law. 2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in appeal, while relying upon two judgments of the Supreme Court, one in Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. & Anr Vs. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union & Ors reported in 2005 I CLR 816 and other in Workmen represented by Akhil Bharatiya Koyla Kamgar Union Vs. Employers in relation to the Management of Industry Colliery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. reported in 2001 II CLR 1, contended that it was the Company which has misrepresented before the Court inasmuch as no settlement had been executed between the parties. According to him, settlement could not be executed in law. With reference to the judgment in Oswal Agro Furane Ltd(supra), in fact, no settlement existed and the interim direction was proper. 3. As is evident from rival contentions raised before this Court and when it is also argued that the appellants were not even heard by the learned Single Judge, it was but desirable 5 that the Court should have discussed by giving bare minimum reasoning in relation to the fraud and misrepresentation alleged to have been played by either of the parties. Such a decision ought to be supported by some reasoning as it was purely based on finding of fact. The award of the Industrial Court was against the Union and if the learned Judge was taking a contrary view, atleast some reasoning ought to have been recorded in the impugned order, particularly when the parties have made allegations of fraud and misrepresentation and it is alleged that the settlement was signed by the person who has, in fact, filed a subsequent application. It was a matter which needed attention of the Court. We do not consider it necessary to dwell upon merit or demerits of the respective contentions which are raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and while following the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pipe Arts India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we set aside the order impugned in this appeal and remand the case to the learned Single Judge for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Liberty to parties to move before the learned Single Judge for expeditious hearing. 4. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE 6 V.M. KANADE, J.