( 1 ) IN this petition, challenge has been made by the petitioner to the order dated 21st August 1997 of the Labour Court, Vadodara, Annexure a, made in Reference (L. C. V.) No. 366 of 1986, under which the domestic enquiry held on the charges framed against the respondent-workman was held to be illegal.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-workman was given charge-sheet-cum-suspension pending enquiry vide memo dated 9-1-1986. After holding enquiry, under the order dated 1-2-1986 the petitioner ordered for dismissal of the respondent-workman. The petitioner filed an application under S. 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the act 1947), before the Industrial Tribunal, for getting approval of dismissal of the respondent-workman from the services and the same has been granted on 20th October 1986. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute in the matter of his dismissal from services by the petitioner and that dispute has been referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court at Vadodara, where it was registered as reference (L. C. V.) No. 366 of 1986. The respondent-workman has raised the issue that the domestic enquiry which has been conducted against him on the alleged charges is illegal and improper. It was taken up as a preliminary issue and after recording the evidence of both the parties, under the impugned order, the Labour court has held the same to be illegal and improper. Hence this Special Civil application.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. I. Nanavati contended that the impugned order of the Labour Court is not only improper and illegal but the same is nullity in law as it has been passed by the said authority without assigning any reasons and without application of mind and only on this ground, this order deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Woolcombers of India LIMITED v. Woolcombers Workers Union , reported in AIR 1973 SC 2758. It has next been contended that the order of the labour Court impugned in the Special Civil Application is passed on conjectures and surmises not warranted by law which is clearly borne out from the fact that in support of the order, the Labour Court has not at all given any reasons or findings to reach to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry held against the workman by the petitioner is improper and illegal.

( 4 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 5 ) DURING the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also read the statement of witnesses which have been produced by both the sides on the preliminary issue.

( 6 ) IN the case of M/s. Woolcombers of India LIMITED v. Woolcombers Workers union (supra), Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court observed that the giving of the reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to the Supreme Court by specia