Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78129 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14926 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S S. Gopal Overseas Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Garg,Yash Garg Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jata Shankar Pandey Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Garg alongwith Sri Yash Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jata Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the respondent no. 4 under section 4A of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act published in the official gazette on 28.01.2025 and further to quash the publication dated 28.01.2025 issued by the respondent no. 4. 3. Apart from various other arguments, one of the arguments has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid order is bad in the eyes of law in view of the fact that the same has been passed without application of mind. It is further argued that no cogent reasons whatsoever has been assigned by the respondent no.5 while passing the aforesaid award. 4. This facts is also admitted by learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the order has been passed without assigning any reason. The reasons giving in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimize the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. 7. In view of the facts as narrated above, the Court is of the opinion that since the award dated 29.10.2024 passed by the respondent no.4 is a non speaking award, the same are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. 8. The respondent No.4/ Presiding Officer Labour Court, Firozabad is directed to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law after providing opportunity of haring to the all the parties concerned within six months from the date of production of certified copy before him. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Arti Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad