Order.- Three workmen formerly employed in the Royal Press, Tirunelveli, made claim before the Labour Court, Madurai for compensation for the termination of their service on account of the closure of the aforesaid press In the counter of the Management of the press, it was specifically alleged that, the Management had not closed the press, but, on the other hand, while the Manager was away in his village of Kalakkad, the workers themselves locked the press and went away and that subsequently, the Manager came back and opened the press and set it working. An issue was framed by the Labour Court on this very same point: “ Did the petitioner lock the respondent’s press and go away on his own accord putting a leave letter inside the shop and giving the key of the shop to the next-door fruit vendor?” The Labour Court did not give any decision on this issue but passed a short order: “ The petitions are allowed and the respondent is directed to pay the petitioners as follows.” giving three amounts which should be paid to the three workmen. It is against this order that the Management has filed these three Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that where the Management disputes the very right which the workmen has claimed to receive payment of a certain sum of money after its computation, the Labour Court must deal with that question and decide whether the workmen had the right to receive the benefit, as alleged by him. It is only if the Labour Court answers this point in favour of the workmen that the next question of making the necessary computation arises. This is the view laid down by the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Rajagopalan1. From the order of the Labour Court in this case, one is left to speculate whether the Labour Court did really apply its mind to the question raised by the Management that there was in fact no closure at all, and that as a consequence the workmen were not entitled to receive compensation under section 25-F of the Act for loss of their services. There can be cases where an authority need not pass a speaking order. But, in the present case, the Labour Court framed an issue and then also heard evidence. There can be cases where an authority need not pass a speaking order. But, in the present case, the Labour Court framed an issue and then also heard evidence. It has therefore to decide the issue judicially after setting out the evidence for and against and also the arguments pro and con. This is certainly not a case where the Labour Court can dispense with the writing of an order containing a reasoned conclusion. If such an order is written, then the question whether it can be corrected in writ proceedings will be a different matter. But where no order at all is written inspite of the fact that there was an issue and there was evidence, one is left to speculate whether the Labour Court had bestowed its attention at all on the point for decision, or whether it was under a misapprehension that the scope of its jurisdiction was only to make the computation of the compensation prayed for without giving a decision on the right that was also disputed before it. I, therefore, quash the orders of the Labour Court in the three cases. The Labour Court will restore the petitions to its file and dispose them of according to law. There will be no costs in these petitions. R.M. ------- Petitions allowed.