Judgment

JUDGMENT - This appeal arises out of the special leave granted by this Court on application under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in First Appeal from Order No. 7 of 1981 dated March 9, 1981. It may be stated here that the appeal was to be heard by the Single Bench of the High Court. But in view of the importance of the points raised in a number of similar matters a reference was made before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench answered the reference in F.A.O. No. 476 of 1978. In terms of the decision rendered in the said First Appeal, the appeal preferred by the appellant in the High Court namely, F.A.O. No. 7 of 1981 was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench. The said F.A.O. No. 7 of 1981 arose out of an adjudication dt. 24-12-1979 made by the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Haryana imposing damages for a sum of Rs. 51,857.40 under Section 85(B)(1) of the Employees State Insurance Act as contained in Annexure A of the Special Leave Petition. The appellant-company thereafter made an application under Section 75 of the Act and such application was dismissed by an order dated 11-10-1980 passed by the Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Ballabhgarh. After disposal of the said application, F.A.O. No. 7 of 1981 was preferred before the High Court. The facts leading to the aforesaid proceedings are to the following effect:

The Regional Director proposed to impose damages on account of payment of the dues under the State Employees Insurance Act beyond the time frame and a notice to that effect was issued to the appellant. The appellant made a written representation in response to the notice indicating the reasons for which there had been delay in making such payment. Such written representation has been annexed to the Special Leave Petition being Annexure A-l. Although an opportunity of personal hearing was afforded by the Regional Director to the appellant, such opportunity was not availed of. The written representation was stated to have been taken into consideration by the Regional Director and the same was dismissed by making the order to the following effect:

"I have applied my mind to all the relevant facts and have gone into the reasons stated by the employer. My finding on each of the contentions of the establishment are as under:

The reasons advanced are not legally tenable. Opportunity of Personal hearing afforded on 22-11-1979 has not been availed of."

2. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended before us that although in the written representation various reasons were indicated by the appellant as to why the payment could not be made within the time frame, such written representation had not been taken into consideration by adverting to the grounds indicated in the representation by the Regional Director who passed the impugned order mechanically holding that the reasons were not legally tenable. He has submitted that the Regional Director being quasi-judicial authority was required to dispose of the objection or the representation made by the appellant by applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and by clearly indicating why the objections were not tenable for basing his decision. But unfortunately, no reason was indicated, by the Regional Director in support of the conclusion that the reasons were not legally tenable. it is quite apparent from the order of the Regional Director that there was total non-application of mind in discharging quasi-judicial duties and functions. In this connection, reference was made by the learned counsel to the decision of this Court made in Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 1803. In the said decision, power under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, was taken into consideration. On the question of reasoned order to be made by the adjudicating author