JAI PRAKASH SINGH Vs. CENTRAL APPRENTICESHIP COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition an order passed by the Regional Apprenticeship Advisor and Regional Director, Northern Region, Kanpur, Respondent No. 2, under Section 7(3)(b) of the Apprentices Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby a contract of apprenticeship has been terminated and a direction has been made that a sum of Rs. 500/ -may be recovered as the cost of training from the guardian of the Petitioner for having failed to carry out the terms and conditions of the contract, is sought to be quashed. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed and the question involved in the writ petition being a short one we are of opinion that it is a fit case which may be finally disposed off at this very stage as contemplated by the second proviso to Rule 2(1) of Chapter 22 of the Rules of the Court. We accordingly proceed to dispose off the writ petition finally.

(2.) ONE of the grievances raised in the writ petition is that even though an appeal was filed against the order of Respondent No. 2 by the Petitioner before Respondent No. 1, the same has not been disposed off. In regard to this submission it has been asserted by Shri J.N. Tewari, appearing for Respondents 1, 2 and 4, that no appeal was maintainable against the order passed by Respondent No. 2. Reliance for the submission that an appeal was maintainable was placed by counsel for the Petitioner on Sub -section (2) of Section 20 of the Act Section 20 of the Act reads as follows:

(3.) IN Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India : AIR 1976 SC 1785 it was held that it is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi -judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi judicial order must be supported by reasons. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi -judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. The impugned order, as already seen above, does not give any reason as to why the detailed explanation submitted by the Petitioner was not acceptable. It has to be borne in mind that there is difference between a finding and the reasons on which the said finding is based. In the instant case at best what can be said is that the Respondent No. 2 had recorded a finding that the Petitioner had failed to carry out the terms and conditions of the contract but no reasons for the said findings have been recorded by Respondent No. 2. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.