The main legal point established in the judgment is that judicial orders, including those related to interim relief, should be supported by reasoning, and absence of reasoning may render the order liable to be set aside.

1. On somewhat similar facts, the learned Single Judge had passed the order “Prayer for interim relief is rejected” giving rise to the above nine appeals. As a common question of law is raised in all these appeals, it will be appropriate to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment. However, for the purposes of convenience, we have referred to the facts of writ petition No.7373 of 2007.

2. The appellant-company is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, carrying on the business of fabrication of components partly at its factory and partly at the site of its customers with the help of various workmen in its employment.

3. On 21st February, 1999, the workmen suddenly proceeded on an illegal strike and started causing obstruction to ingress of men and material at the gate of the factory. According to the workmen, their services had been terminated orally on 25th August, 1999 and, therefore, they referred the matter to the Conciliation Officer seeking reference of their dispute to the Labour Court. Even before the Conciliation Officer, the appellant-company offered job to the workmen and asked them to report for duty. The Conciliation Officer submitted failure report. The appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication in accordance with law to the Labour Court, Pune. The IIIrd Labour Court, Pune vide its order dated 2nd February, 2007, passed an award holding that there was an oral termination of services of the workmen on 20th September, 1999 and granted relief of reinstatement and half back wages. This award was challenged by the company under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this court by way of filing writ petition No.7373 of 2007 wherein the appellant prayed for interim relief by way of stay of the operation of the impugned order. The said writ petition came up for hearing alongwith the other eight connected writ petitions and the learned Single Judge, on 25th January, 2008, passed the following order:-

“Heard Mr. Patwardhan, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner-company. Rule. Prayer for interim relief is rejected. Mr. Kulkarni waives service for the Respondents. Called for R. and P. Liberty to apply for fixing the date of early hearing.”

4. The appellant-company challenges the legality, propriety and correctness of the above order on the ground that no reasons have been recorded by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the prayer for grant of interim relief to the appellant-company. It is also urged that on finding merit in the writ petition of the petitioner, rule was issued by the learned Single Judge which itself is indicative of the fact that even the prayer for grant of interim relief of the petitioner had a merit.Thus, it could not have been rejected particularly without stating any reason. Non-recording of reasons has caused serious prejudice to the interest of the appellant. The counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon an order dated 26th February, 2008 of the Division Bench of this court in the case of M/s. Shiv Santosh Dugdhalaya v. Mr. Yashwant D. Purandare (Letters Patent Appeal No.31 of 2008 with Civil Application No.29 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.9274 of 2007).

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had no objection in setting aside the order impugned in the present appeal as, according to him also, the court is expected to record reasons while granting or declining the relief prayed before the court even by way of interim relief. According to him, the order in LPA 31 OF 2008 was on a concession.

6. It is true that the order in LPA 31 of 2008 was passed on a concession recorded and both the parties were ad idem that the learned Single Judge should have stated some reasons in support of order rejecting the prayer. May be, the order in that case was passed by consent of the parties but certainly, the principle that judicial orders should be supported by some reasoning, still holds good. In the case of Uni