JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The workmen of M/S Star Paper Mills, Ltd. Saharanpur and their Union have come up in appeal against the judgment of a Learned Single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by the employees and quashing the order of the State Government remitting the award for reconsideration to the Labour Court, Meerut. 2. The State Government acting under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act referred a dispute between the Star Paper Mills, Ltd. and their workmen relating to the termination of the services of 12 of the workmen for adjudication to the Labour Court, Meerut. The parties duly filed their pleadings. The employers examined 4 witnesses and concluded their evidence. On behalf of the workmen one Shobha Singh was examined as a witness. The workmen sought several adjournments to lead further evidence. On 9th April, 1972, the Labour Court refused their request for another adjournment. Thereupon, Shobha Singh, who was conducting the case on behalf of the workmen, gave a statement that he was not prepared to lead any further evidence. Thereafter, the employers examined witnesses in rebuttal and closed their evidence. Evidently after hearing arguments the Labour Court dictated its award in open Court on the same date. In due course the Labour Court submitted its award to the State Government. It appears that the workmen made a representation to the State Government against the award. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 6(4) of the Act passed an order on 25th March, 1972, remitting the award for reconsideration to the Labour Court, Meerut. The order did not specify any reasons or grounds upon which the award needed reconsideration. 3. When the matter was taken up by the Labour Court, the employers, inter alia, raised an objection that the order remitting the award was invalid because no reasons had been stated therein. The Labour Court overruled this objection and held that after going through the entire proceedings and the award as also the evidence on the record find that for proper reconsideration it is necessary to allow the workmen and the employers to adduce their oral evidence in this Court. It fixed 9th August, 1972, for evidence and final hearing. 4. The Labour Court overruled this objection and held that after going through the entire proceedings and the award as also the evidence on the record find that for proper reconsideration it is necessary to allow the workmen and the employers to adduce their oral evidence in this Court. It fixed 9th August, 1972, for evidence and final hearing. 4. Aggrieved, the management instituted a writ petition in this Court challenging the order of the State Government remitting the award as well as the order dated 7th July, 1972 passed by the Labour Court, Meerut, permitting the workmen to lead further evidence. 5. The learned single Judge repelled the submission made on behalf of the employers that the Labour Court could not reopen the case in its entirely but was confined to reconsidering the awarded alone. It was held that when the matter goes back to the Labour Court the Labour Court is free to follow such procedure as it thinks. It can record additional evidence also. It is not confined to the evidence already on the record. The learned single Judge further held that the power of remission under Section 6(4) of the Act was quasi judicial in nature and so in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Prem Prakash Virmani v. State Government, 1970 A. L. J. 1197 it was incumbent upon the State Government to have passed a reasoned order. Without any indication of the reasons for which the award has been remitted for reconsideration the Labour Court would be hard put in finding out the error in its earlier award. While remitting the award for reconsideration the State Government cannot take into consideration matters of administrative policy. On this view. the order dated 25th March, 1972, of the State Government remitting the award was quashed. The subsequent order of the Labour Court dated 71th July, 1972, was also set aside. The State Government was left free to pass a fresh order under Section 6(4) of the Act in accordance with law. Aggrieved, the workmen and the union have come up in appeal. 6. The two questions which require consideration are :- (i) Whether the Labour Court can reopen the case and proceed to move while reconsidering the award remitted to it, and (2) Whether the power of remission under Section 6(4) is quasi-Judicial. 7. Aggrieved, the workmen and the union have come up in appeal. 6. The two questions which require consideration are :- (i) Whether the Labour Court can reopen the case and proceed to move while reconsidering the award remitted to it, and (2) Whether the power of remission under Section 6(4) is quasi-Judicial. 7. Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act empowers the State Government to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication to a Labour Court. Section 5-C of the Act provides that the Labour Court may follow such procedure as it thinks fit in the circumstances of the case while disposing of a reference. Section 6(4) says : "6(4) The State Government may, before publication of an award of a Labour Court or Tribunal under Sub-Section (3), remit the award for reconsideration of the adjudicating authority and that authority shall, after reconsideration submit its award to the State Government, and the State Government shall publish the award in the manner provided in Sub-Section (3)". This provision does not in any manner limit or restrict the powers of the Labour Court in adjudicating a reference. There is no other provision in the Act indicating that while reconsidering an award the Labour Court is to exercise a jurisdiction different in nature than possessed by it while adjudicating a reference. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the Labour Court has the same jurisdiction and powers in respect of an award remitted to it for reconsideration as it had in regard to the adjudication of a referred dispute. It is free to adopt such procedure as if thinks fit in the circumstances of the case. If the circumstances of the case are such that the Labour Court is satisfied that further evidence should be adduced it has jurisdiction to record it. It is not confined to the evidence already on record. 8. On the second question it was urged that the power of remitting the award is quasi-judicial because under Section 6(4) the State Government exercises a supervisory jurisdiction in relation to a quasi-judicial decision of the Labour Court. In the nature of things, the decision that the award needs reconsideration has to be reached on the merits of the case and cannot be based on grounds of policy and administrative expediency. In the nature of things, the decision that the award needs reconsideration has to be reached on the merits of the case and cannot be based on grounds of policy and administrative expediency. The remission of the award in effect keeps in abeyance the rights of the parties as adjudicated by the award. All these circumstances indicate that the State Government exercises a quasi-judicial function which in law requires a reasoned order. 9. Section 6-A provides :- 6-A. Commencement of the award (i) An award (including an arbitration award) shall become enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication under Section 6 : Provided that if the State Government is of the opinion that it will be inexpedient, on public grounds affecting national or State Economy or social justice, to give effect to the whole or any part of the award, the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare that the award shall not be enforceable on the expiry of said period of thirty days :- Provided further that an arbitration award shall not become enforceable where the State Government, after such enquiry as it considers necessary, is satisfied that the same has been given or obtained through collusion, fraud or misrepresentation. (2) Where any declaration has been made in relation to an award under the first proviso to Sub-Section (1), the State Government may within ninety days from the date of publication of the award under Section 6, make an order rejecting or modifying the award and shall on the first available opportunity lay the award together with a copy of the order before the Legislature of the State. (3) Where an award as rejected or modified by an order made under Sub-Section (2) is laid before the Legislature of the State, such award shall become enforceable on the expiry of fifteen days from the date on which it is so laid and where no order under Sub-Section (2) is made in pursuance of a declaration under the First proviso to Sub-Section (i), the award shall become forceable on the expiry of the period of ninety days referred to in Sub-Section (2). (4) Subject to the provisions of Sub-secs. (4) Subject to the provisions of Sub-secs. (i) and (3) regarding the enforceability of an award, the award shall come into operation with effect from such date as may be specified therein, but where no date is specified, it shall come into operation on the date when the award becomes enforceable under Sub-Section (i) or Sub-Section (3) as the case may be." It will be seen that the State Government cannot refuse to publish an award. In relation to an arbitration award the State Government has been given the power to nullify the enforcement of the award if it is satisfied that the same has been given or obtained by collusion, fraud or misrepresentation; but even this power has not been given to the State Government in relation to an award made by the Labour Court or Tribunal. In respect of this class of awards the State Government can declare that it will be inexpedient on public grounds affecting national or state economy or social justice to give effect to the whole or any part of the award. On making such a declaration the State Government can within 90 days of the publication of the award make an order rejecting or modifying the award. But such an order of modification or a rejection of an award is subject to confirmation by the Legislature of the State before whom the order has to be laid. An award can be modified or rejected by the State Government and the State Legislature only on the state ground namely that it will be inexpedient to give effect to it on public grounds affecting national or State economy or social justice. 10. Section 6-C empowers the State Government to transfer any proceeding pending before a Labour Court or Tribunal to another but the section requires that such an order shall be passed in writing and for reasons to be stated therein. Section 11-B of the Act gives power to the State Government to remove difficulties. It provides that if in the opinion of the State Government any difficulty or doubt arises as to the interpretation of any provision of an award or settlement, it may refer the question to such Labour Court or Tribunal as it may think fit. Under this provision the State Government has to formulate a question if it finds any difficulty or doubt in regard to the interpretation of any award. Under this provision the State Government has to formulate a question if it finds any difficulty or doubt in regard to the interpretation of any award. This provision, also requires the State Government to give an indication of its mind before passing an order. 11. Section 6(4) of the Act which empowers the State Government to remit an award for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority does not circumscribe the power to any class of reasons or grounds upon which alone an award can be remitted. Wherever the Legislature requires the State Government to take an action on specified grounds or after stating reasons, it has specifically said so. In this context. the omission of requiring the statement of reasons in Section 6(4) gains prominence. The Legislative intent does not suggest that the order of remission must state the reasons to sustain it. 12. The power of the State Government in regard to an award of a Labour Court or Tribunal is under Section 6-A administrative. There the State Government acts on expediency and the grounds mentioned in the first proviso. The fact that Section 6(4) does not either require the State Government to state reasons in support of the order remitting the award coupled with the fact that this provision does not confine the adjudicating authority to any particular kind of reconsideration would show that the State Government does not exercise any supervisory jurisdiction over the Labour Court or Tribunal. The Labour Court or Tribunal decides the reference as an independent judicial authority. Even though the State Government makes a reference under Section 4-K of the Act, yet the Labour Court or Tribunal is not subservient to the opinion of the State Government in regard to the question whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. It is free to objectively and judicially decide the question, if any of the parties dispute the view of the State Government that an industrial dispute exists. Similarly, when the adjudicating authority takes up the award for reconsideration, its original jurisdiction reviews. It has to act as an independent judicial authority and to reconsider the matter and decide the original reference in the same manner as Before namely, judicially and independently of the opinion of the State Government. 13. Similarly, when the adjudicating authority takes up the award for reconsideration, its original jurisdiction reviews. It has to act as an independent judicial authority and to reconsider the matter and decide the original reference in the same manner as Before namely, judicially and independently of the opinion of the State Government. 13. Since there is no limitation with regard to the grounds or reasons for which the State Government may remit an award for reconsideration, it seems to us that the State Government can remit an award for reconsideration even on grounds of expediency or administrative policy. But as already observed, the Labour Court or Tribunal is not bound by the opinion of the State Government. It will while reconsidering the award apply its own independent mind in a judicial manner. It will see whether there is any illegality, irregularity or infirmity in the proceedings or in the award which require rectification or reconsideration. The reconsideration by the Labour Court has to be on facts objectively established before it and in the light of the prevailing law on the subject or points in dispute. Simply because the action of the State Government in remitting the award puts the award in abeyance temporarily, it is difficult to infer that the power of remission is quasi-judicial in nature. In our opinion, the power conferred by Section 6.(4) is administrative in nature and so in law the State Government is not under an obligation to indicate the reasons impelling it to remit the award. 14. As already observed, the Labour Court has while reconsidering the award to apply its own mind and come to the conclusion whether there is any, infirmity, etc. which needs rectification or correction. In the ultimate paragraph of its order dated 7th July, 1972, the Labour Court observed that for proper reconsideration it is necessary to allow the workmen and the employers to adduce their oral evidence. No reasons have been given for this conclusion. There is no indication as to why the matter could not be properly considered without fresh evidence. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain this order. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. No reasons have been given for this conclusion. There is no indication as to why the matter could not be properly considered without fresh evidence. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain this order. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The order dated 7th July, 1972, passed by the Labour Court, Meerut, is quashed and the matter is sent back to the Labour Court, Meerut, for a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances, the parties may bear their own costs.