# Claimant/ v. Prescribed Authority/Commissioner Workman Compensation U.P. at Allahabad and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 323
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-03-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13893 of 2009
- **Bench:** Shishir Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/claimant-v-prescribed-authority-commissioner-workman-compensation-u-p-at-41375
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art.-226-Practice &
Procedure-recording reasons-must for
fair justice-even administrative authority
is bound to record reasons-rejection of
application for correction of date of birth
without disclosing any reason-order can
not sustain.

Held: Para 5

From the perusal of the order dated
3.9.2008, it is apparent that respondent
No.1 has not applied his mind and has
not recorded any reason as why the
application
filed
by
petitioner
for
amendment of correction of the date of
death of the petitioner's husband is
liable to be dismissed. As no reasons
have been recorded, therefore, it will be
presumed that the order passed by
respondent No.1 is an order of nonapplication of mind without assigning
any reason.
Case law discussed:
A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1984, 1991 (2) SCC, 716, AIR
1970, SC, 1302.

## Text

2 All] Smt. Seema Singh & ors. V. P.O./Commissioner, Workman Compensation & ors.
323
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13893 of 2009

Smt. Seema Singh and others

 ...Claimant/Petitioners
Versus
Prescribed
Authority/Commissioner
Workman
Compensation
U.P.
at
Allahabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Rama Kant Singh Baghel

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India Art.-226-Practice &
Procedure-recording reasons-must for
fair justice-even administrative authority
is bound to record reasons-rejection of
application for correction of date of birth
without disclosing any reason-order can
not sustain.

Held: Para 5

From the perusal of the order dated
3.9.2008, it is apparent that respondent
No.1 has not applied his mind and has
not recorded any reason as why the
application
filed
by
petitioner
for
amendment of correction of the date of
death of the petitioner's husband is
liable to be dismissed. As no reasons
have been recorded, therefore, it will be
presumed that the order passed by
respondent No.1 is an order of nonapplication of mind without assigning
any reason.
Case law discussed:
A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1984, 1991 (2) SCC, 716, AIR
1970, SC, 1302.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for quashing the order passed
by
respondent No.1 dated 3.9.2008 by which
the amendment application filed by
petitioner has been rejected.

2. The petitioner's husband was an
employee of respondent No.3 as a driver.
In
an
accident,
he
was
injured.
Subsequently, he expired on 1.1.2005. A
claim
petition
under
Workman
Compensation Act as Case No.71 of 2006
was filed before the Labour Court i.e.
respondent
No.1
for
awarding
compensation. During pendency of claim
petition, it was revealed that by mistake of
the counsel, the date of death instead of
1.1.2005, 30.12.2004 has been mentioned.
Then an application for amendment has
been filed only amending the date in the
application was moved but the respondent
No.1 has rejected the same without
assigning
any
reason
and
without
mentioning the fact that why this
application filed by petitioner is being
rejected.

3. I have heard learned counsel for
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

4. As the limited question that
whether
the
Commissioner
under
Workman Compensation Act has applied
his mind while rejecting the application
and has passed a non-speaking order, as
such, in the opinion of the Court, it will
be a futile effort to invite counter affidavit
or to issue notice to opposite party. If this
order is set aside, the opposite party is not
going to be affected by the order which is
going to be passed by this Court, as such,
at this stage, the writ petition is being
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
disposed of finally with the consent of the
parties.

5. From the perusal of the order
dated 3.9.2008, it is apparent that
respondent No.1 has not applied his mind
and has not recorded any reason as why
the application filed by petitioner for
amendment of correction of the date of
death of the petitioner's husband is liable
to be dismissed. As no reasons have been
recorded, therefore, it will be presumed
that the order passed by respondent No.1
is an order of non-application of mind
without assigning any reason.

6. Learned Standing Counsel is also
not in a position to assail that order passed
by respondents is an order in accordance
with law. It is well settled that an order
having civil consequences, even though
passed by administrative authority, must
contain reasons so as to enable the
aggrieved party to challenge the reasoning
of the administrative authority or judicial
authority because in the writ jurisdiction it
is the reasoning, which has to be decided.
In the absence of reasons, no foundation
can be laid by petitioner based upon nonapplication of mind.

7. In case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs.
Union of India reported in A.I.R. 1990
S.C. 1984, the Apex has already held as
follows:-

"In view of the expanding horizon of
the principles of natural justice, the
requirement to record reason an be
regarded as one of the principles of
natural justice which govern exercise of
power by administrative authorities. The
rules of natural justice are not embodied
rules. The extent of their application
depends upon the particular statutory
framework where under jurisdiction has
been conferred on an administrative
authority. With regard to the exercise of a
particular power by an administrative
authority including exercise of judicial or
quasi-judicial functions the legislature,
while conferring the said power, may feel
that it would not be in the larger public
interest that the reasons for the order
passed by the administrative authority be
recorded
in
the
order
and
be
communicated to the aggrieved party and
it may dispense with such a requirement.
It may do so by making an express
provision to that effect. Such an exclusion
can be also arise by necessary implication
from the nature of the subject matter, the
scheme and the provisions of the
enactment. The public interest under lying
such a provision would outweigh the
salutary
purpose
served
by
the
requirement to record the reasons. The
said requirement cannot, therefore, be
insisted upon in such a case. Therefore,
except in cases where the requirement has
been disposed of with expressly or by
necessary implications, an administrative
authority exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions is required to record the
reasons for its decision.
The recording of reasons by an
administrative authority serves a salutary
purpose, namely, it excludes chances of
arbitrariness and assures a degree of
fairness in the process of decisionmaking. The said purpose would apply
equally to all decisions and its application
cannot be confined to decisions which are
subject to appeal, revision or judicial
review. Therefore, the requirement that
reasons be recorded should govern the
decisions of an administrative authority
exercising
quasi-judicial
functions
irrespective of the fact whether the
decision is subject to appeal, revision or
2 All] Smt. Seema Singh & ors. V. P.O./Commissioner, Workman Compensation & ors.
325
judicial review. It is however not required
that the reasons should be as elaborate as
in the decision of a Court of law. The
extent and nature of the reasons would
depend
on
particular
facts
and
circumstances. What is necessary is that
the reasons are clear and explicitly so as
to indicate that the authority has been due
consideration the points in controversy.
The need for recording of reasons is
greater in a case where the order is
passed at the original stage. The
appellate or revisional authority, if it
affirms such an order, need not give
separate reasons if the appellate or
revisional authority agrees with the
reasons contained in the order under
challenge.

In the case of Maharashtra State
Board
of
Secondary
and
Higher
Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi
and others reported in 1991 (2) SCC,
716, the Apex Court has held as under:-

"The reasons are harbinger between
the mind of the maker of the order to the
controversy in question and the decision
or conclusion arrived at. They also
exclude the chances to reach arbitrary,
whimsical or capricious decision or
conclusion. The reasons assure an Inbuilt
support
to
the
conclusion/decision
reached. When an order affects the right
of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the
fact whether it is a quasi-judicial or
administrative order, and unless the rule
expressly or by necessary implication
excludes recording of reasons, it is
implicit that the principles of natural
justice or fair play require recording of
germane and precise relevant reasons as
a
part
of
fair
procedure.
In
an
administrative decision, its order/decision
itself may not contain reasons. It may not
be the requirement of the rules, but the
least, the record should disclose reasons.
It may not be like a judgement. The extent
and nature of the reasons would depend
on particular facts and circumstances.
What is necessary is that the reasons are
clear and explicitly so as to indicate that
the authority has given due consideration
to the points in controversy. The need for
recording of reasons is greater in a case
where the order is passed at the original
stage.
The
appellate
or
revisional
authority, if it affirms such an order, need
not give separate reasons. If the appellate
or revisional authority disagrees, the
reasons must be contained in the order
under
challenge.
The
recording
of
reasons is also an assurance that the
authority concerned consciously applied
its mind to the facts on record. It also aids
the appellate or revisional authority or
the supervisory jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 or the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
Article 136 to see whether the authority
concerned acted fairly and justly to mete
out justice to the aggrieved person.

In the case of M/s Mahabir Prasad
Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. &
others reported in AIR 1970, SC, 1302,
the Apex Court has held as under:-

"The High Court in rejecting the
petition filed by the appellants has
observed that the District Magistrate in
considering
the
explanation
of
the
appellants
had
"considered
all
the
materials" and also that "the State
Government in considering the appeal
had considered all the materials". We
have, however, nothing on the record to
show
that
materials
if
any
were
considered by the District Magistrate and
the State Government. The High Court
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
has also observed that Clause 7 of the
Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order does not
require "the State Government to pass a
reasoned order. All that is required is to
give an aggrieved person an opportunity
of being heard." We are of the view that
the High Court erred in so holding. The
appellants have a right not only to have
an opportunity to make a representation,
but they are entitled to have their
representation considered by an Authority
unconcerned with the dispute and to be
given information which would show the
decision was reached on the merits and
not on considerations of policy or
expency. This is a clear implication of the
nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the
appellate authority; it is not required to
be expressly mentioned in the statute.
There is nothing on the record which
shows that the representation made by the
appellants was even considered. The fact
that Clause 7 of the Sugar Dealers'
Licensing Order to which the High Court
has referred does not "require the State
Government to pass a reasoned order" is
wholly irrelevant. The nature of the
proceeding
requires
that
the
State
Government must given adequate reasons
which disclose that an attempt was made
to reach a conclusion according to law
and justice."

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I
am of the view that the Appellate Order
dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure 4 to writ
petition) deserves to be quashed.

9. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed.
The
order
dated
3.9.2008
(Annexure 4 to writ petition) is hereby
quashed. The matter is remitted back to
respondent No.1 to pass an appropriate
and detailed order according to law within
a period of three months from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced
before respondent No.1.

10. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21068 of 2009

Ram Pratap Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of UP and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kaushal Kishore Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 311 (2)-
Dismissal from service-petitioner was
convicted under Section 302/149/147can not be ground for dismissal unless
the authority concerned applied its mind
to
form
opinion
to
dispense
with
enquiry-by
providing
opportunity
of
hearing-dismissal order set-aside with
direction to consider fresh in light of
observation.

Held: Para 14

In the present case the appointing
authority has not applied his mind, after
reading the judgement of conviction and
punishment, in forming an opinion, that
the conduct of the petitioner was such
which did not require to provide to him
an opportunity of hearing before the
petitioner was dismissed from service.
Case law discussed:
1985 3 SCC 368:
AIR 1985 SC 1416,
AIR 2007 SC 1003.