vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION WRIT PETITION WRIT PETITION NO.2620 OF 2005 NO.2620 OF 2005 NO.2620 OF 2005 Shivaji Pandurang Solave ... Petitioner V/s. Shri Vithal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ... Respondent Mr.Ravindra Nair for Petitioner Mr.K.S. Bapat for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 13, 2005 OCTOBER 13, 2005 OCTOBER 13, 2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The order challenged in this Petition is passed by the appellate Court under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The appellate Court in a solitary paragraph has disposed off the appeal by observing that there was "no iota of evidence to disbelieve the finding" of the Labour Court. 3. The appellate Court under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act is expected to reappreciate the evidence which was led before the Labour Court in an application under section 78 of the Act. The appellate Court is : 2 : expected to consider not only the evidence on record but also the contentions raised by the parties. The appellate Court cannot, while observing that elaborate arguments were advanced, refuse to discuss the arguments. Reasons for accepting one or the other argument must be apparent from the order of the appellate Court. There is no discussion of the evidence and by passing a cryptic order, it has dismissed the appeal. The appellate Court has thereby obviously shirked its responsibility. 4. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The appeal is remanded for fresh hearing. The appellate Court is expected to reappreciate the evidence on record and to discuss the arguments advanced and to give reasons for arriving at its own conclusion. Petition is disposed off accordingly.