Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010082192018 2026:GAU-AS:7003 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2583/2018 BASIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O- LATE RASHID ALI BARBHUIYA, HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD NO.1, GACHTOLA, P.O, P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE AND DM (REFORMS) DEPTT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788155 3:THE LABOUR INSPECTOR AND INSPECTOR UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788155 4:RUSHAN AHMED LASKAR S/O- LATE SADEK ALI LASKAR HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD NO.1 P.O P.S AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. N.A. Laskar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Baruah, Govt. Advocate Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 20.05.2026 Heard Ms. N.A. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3. 2. None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4 in spite of service being complete. 3. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner- cum-Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Hailakandi, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 76,600/- within a period of 45 days from the date of the said order. The petitioner has also assailed the consequential order dated 29.01.2018 whereby the Tahsildar was directed to recover the amount of Rs. 76,600/- in the form of land revenue from the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the impugned order would show Page No.# 3/5 that the authority did not assign any reasons therein. Merely on the ground that no amicable settlement could be arrived at, the authority came to a finding that the petitioner was liable to make payment of Rs. 76,600/-. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that when an authority is entrusted with a duty and obligation to decide a dispute, it is incumbent upon such authority to assign reasons in support of its decision, and failure to do so would result in the action or order to be unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. S.R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 fairly submitted that a perusal of the impugned order dated 28.08.2017 would show that no reasons were assigned as to why the petitioner was held liable to pay the amount of Rs. 76,600/-. The learned Government Advocate, however, submitted that if the said dues are payable by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4 should not be deprived of the said amount on account of there being a mistake committed by the authority in passing the impugned order. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given anxious consideration to the Page No.# 4/5 submissions made. 7. A perusal of the impugned order contains no reasons. The said order only shows that since no amicable settlement had been arrived at, the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 76,600/-. A duty was cast upon the authority to decide and assign reason why the said amount was payable by the petitioner. The same having not been done, the impugned order is unreasonable and arbitrary. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.08.2017 is liable to be set aside and quashed. The order dated 29.01.2018 being consequential to the impugned order dated 28.08.2017, also cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned order dated 28.08.2017 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Hailakandi as well as the consequential order dated 29.01.2018 passed in Case No. 20M/2015 are hereby set aside and quashed. (ii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 2 for a fresh decision on the application filed by the respondent No. 4 in Case No. 20M/2015. Taking into account that the Page No.# 5/5 said application has been pending for more than a decade, the respondent No. 2 shall take effective steps for disposal of the same expeditiously and preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. (iii) Mr. S.R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate shall intimate the respondent No. 2 about the instant order. (iv) The Registry shall furnish a copy of the instant order to Mr. S.R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate for necessary compliance. JUDGE Comparing Assistant