1. Heard. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Though the impugned Judgment of the Industrial Court passed in the revision application is sought to be challenged on various grounds, it is not necessary to deal with all those grounds and suffice to refer to only one ground, namely, that the impugned Judgment is a non-speaking order.

3. Bare perusal of the impugned Judgment discloses that after formulating the point for consideration in the revision application and making a cursory reference to the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates, the Industrial Court has disposed of the revision application by merely observing thus:

"9. In view of these submissions, I have gone through the order under revision. It is well settled law that this Court has no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence on record. I do not find even any substance in the grounds of revision. Subject to any error, this Court cannot interfere in the order under revision. Hence I answer point No.1 in the negative."

4. Apart from para 9, there is absolutely no discussion on the point which is involved in the matter, the points which are sought to be raised by the petitioner before the rev