The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of citing reasons in an order, the beneficial nature of the Employees' Compensation Act, and the need to interpret its provisions in a manner that does not deprive employees of its benefits.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been instituted under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, the 'Act') on behalf of the appellant/claimant assailing the order dated 08.09.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation (hereinafter, 'CEC'), District- East/North-East, Delhi in Case No.WC/25/WD/17.

2. In his petition filed before CEC, District West for compensation under Section 22 of the Act, the appellant claimed that he was employed as a cleaner with respondent No.2 on vehicle bearing No. RJ-14-GB-2101 (Truck). It was stated that he was getting wages at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month plus Rs.150/- as food allowance.

On 27.08.2009, he met with an accident while tightening a rope over the truck during the course of employment. The accident had occurred as the rope the appellant was tying snapped and he fell from a height. Reportedly, the appellant received grievous injuries due to the accident, for which he also remained hospitalized. It was claimed that he had become 100% disabled for the purpose of employment as a cleaner.

3. The appellant preferred his claim petition before CEC, District-West on 07.03.2017, whereafter the case was transferred to CEC, District-East. On 08.09.2017, the appellant submitted an application for withdrawal of the claim petition with liberty to file afresh. Though the claim application was permitted to be withdrawn by the learned Commissioner on 08.09.2017 itself, no liberty was given to file a fresh claim.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order by contending that the order is illegal, as the same deprived the appellant of his statutory right to seek compensation.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order.

6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. A perusal of the case records would show that the appellant's compensation application filed before CEC, District West was permitted to be withdrawn on account of an application filed on his behalf. In the withdrawal application filed before CEC, District East, it was prayed that the appellant may be allowed to withdraw in order to pursue a fresh claim in terms of Rule 24(2) of Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924. This Court is constrained to note that though the appellant's claim petition was permitted to be withdrawn, no liberty was given. Neither the appellant's claim petition was considered on merits nor any reason was given to deny liberty.

8. Time and again, the Supreme Court has taken the view that reasons form the heart and soul of every order/pronouncement, and as such, the importance of citing reasons in an order cannot be gainsaid. To elucidate, in Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others reported as (2010) 3 SCC 732, it was opined as follows:

"40. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also a judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of justice-delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. "The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind. " (Vide State of Orissa v. Dha