Full Judgment
A.M. Sapre, J.
1. With the consent matter is finally heard.
The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated March 24, 2000 passed by the State (Labour Department) addressed to the respondent No. 2 where it is held that since the respondent No. 2 is not an industrial establishment within the meaning of Section 25L(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence no relief can be granted to respondent No. 2. It is on this ground the State has declined to entertain the application submitted by the respondent No. 2 under Section 25O of the Act, giving rise to filing of this writ challenging the same.
2. The petitioner is an Union of Employees working in the respondent No. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of 'Bidi' is undoubtedly an industry and hence subjected to the provisions of Labour Laws including the Industrial Disputes Act. It is their contention that there was absolutely no justification on the part of the State to hold that the respondent No. 2 is not an industry.
3. In my opinion, the order dated March 24, 2000 is not legally sustainable and hence liable to be set aside only on a short point. It is a cryptic order and does not assign any reason nor has discussed the issue involved as to how and on what basis the respondent No. 2 has been held to be not an industrial establishment so as not to attract the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Any order which is unreasoned is not legally sustainable in the eye of law. Reasons for rejection or acceptance must always be made part of the order itself. It exhibits application of mind. As observed (supra), the State has not tried to justify as to how and on what basis it has come to a conclusion that the respondent No. 2 cannot be regarded as an industrial establishment within the meaning of Section 25L(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Section 2(k) of the Factories Act.
4. In the absence of any reasons assigned and also in the absence of any material, I am unable to uphold the order passed by the State on March 24, 2000 (Annexure P13). The petition thus succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated March 24, 2000 (Annexure P13) passed in Case No. 15-01/2000/16-A is quashed by writ of certiorari, A writ of Mandamus is issued to respondent No. 1 to again decide the issue in the context of relevant laws applicable and material brought on record by the parties and then come to a conclusion one way or other whether the respondent No. 2 can be regarded as an industrial establishment?
5. Needless to observe while doing so, the petitioner as also the respondent No. 2, who have represented before this Court will be afforded an opportunity of being heard, depending upon the finding recorded, Consequential action will be taken by the State. Let the proceedings be completed within six months from the date of order. C.C. within a week.