JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - A Mazdoor Sangh invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in industrial disputes which are yet to be adjudicated upon by a certain Labour Court. 2. The State Government, in the purported exercise of powers under section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 19th Jan. 1984, by separate orders referred six separate industrial disputes concerning six individual workmen who, it appears, are the members of the petitioner Mazdoor Sangh for being decided by the Labour Court at Meerut. The dispute in each case is with M/s. Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Limited, the respondent 2 (hereinafter referred to as the employer. The employer on 10th Mar. 1984, made an application before the State Government for the transfer of the proceedings pending before the Labour Court at Meerut to the Labour Court at Ghaziabad. The State Government on 8th Aug. 1984, withdrew the six cases from the Labour Court at Meerut and transferred them to the Labour Court at Ghaziabad. The Mazdoor Sangh feels aggrieved; hence this petition. 3. Section 6-C of the Act confers power upon the State Government to transfer proceedings from one Labour Court to another Labour Court. The relevant portion of the said provision may be extracted here :- "The State Government may, by an order in writing for reasons to be recorded withdraw and transfer a proceeding from............." Has the State Government complied with the aforequoted provisions while passing the impugned order? Has the State Government recorded reasons in its order? The fate of this petition turns upon the decision of these two questions. We, therefore, immediately advert to the contents of the impugned order. The order has been passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The relevant portion of the order may be quoted : "The Government have gone through the transfer application of the employers/ applicant, written reply of the workers/ opposite party and heard arguments of both the parties. The comments of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad, on whose request these cases were referred to the Labour Court Meerut, were sought and considered. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad has stated in his comments that because of extraneous pressure he was influenced to make request for reference of these cases to the Labour Court Meerut. The comments of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad, on whose request these cases were referred to the Labour Court Meerut, were sought and considered. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad has stated in his comments that because of extraneous pressure he was influenced to make request for reference of these cases to the Labour Court Meerut. The Government feel that it would be against the principles of natural justice if these cases are heard by the Labour Court Meerut.........." Normally, once an industrial dispute is referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government to a particular forum, that forum alone is in seisin of the matter referred to it and it alone should dispose of the same. It is now well settled that such a forum, be it a Court or a Tribunal, exercises quasi-judicial powers while adjudicating upon a reference made to it. The transfer of pending proceedings is a serious in road into the exercise of quasijudicial powers of a Tribunal or Court. The Legislature, therefore, has enjoined that the State Government must record its reasons before withdrawing a proceeding from one Court or Tribunal and transferring the same to other Court or Tribunal. The controversy as to whether the requirement of the statute that reasons should be recorded are directory or mandatory had been set at rest as far back as in the year 1960 when the Supreme Court gave its judgment in the case of Associated Electrical Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta v. Its Workmen (1961) 2 Lab LJ 122 : ( AIR 1967 SC 284 ). In this case the Supreme Court was dealing with a problem arising out of S. 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). The provisions in S. 6-C of the Act and the provisions contained in S. 33-B of the Central Act are in pari materia. The appropriate words in S. 33-B are. "The appropriate Government may, by an order in writing and for reasons to be stated." The Court observed : " ...........It is quite clear that the requirement about the statement of the reasons must be complied both in substance and in letter........." The Court emphasised that the power of transfer can be exercised only for "sufficient reasons." 4. The reasoned order or decision serves a twin purpose. First, it is vital for ensuring a person that he is getting justice. The reasoned order or decision serves a twin purpose. First, it is vital for ensuring a person that he is getting justice. This rule, it appears, is a natural corollary of the well-known legal saying that justice should not merely be done but should also appear to be done. Secondly, the obligation to give reasons acts as a valuable discipline for the Tribunal or the Court concerned. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Reasons form the bridge between the conclusion and the material on which the conclusion is reached. They constitute a nexus between a conclusion and the material. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 : (1974 Lab IC 338) (SC), the Supreme Court considered the import of Regulation 5(5) of the Indian Administrative Services (Appointment and Promotion) Regulations, 1955. There the words were- "The Committee shall record its reasons for the proposed supersession." Hon'ble Beg, J.(as he then was)observed:- "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way opinions or decisions recorded can be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable." 5. In a statute, which insists upon thel according of reasons, certain formulations are implicit. Some of them are the reasons must , be proper, adequate and intelligible. Reasons should not be perfunctory. Further, the order I must deal with the substantial points which have been raised before the authority concerned. Vague and general words or ambiguous reasons are not countenanced by such a statutory requirement. 6. Let us now analyse the reasons given in the instant case. The relevant portion of the impugned order has already been extracted above. The order does not disclose as to what was the precise extraneous pressure which influenced the Deputy Labour Commissioner to recommend to the State Government that the disputes should be referred to the Labour Court at Meerut. At the request of the employer this Court directed the State Government to produce its records. Learned counsel for the employer has referred to us to a letter written by one Smt. Ahsan to the then Deputy Labour Commissioner at Ghaziabad. At the request of the employer this Court directed the State Government to produce its records. Learned counsel for the employer has referred to us to a letter written by one Smt. Ahsan to the then Deputy Labour Commissioner at Ghaziabad. This lady, it is stated at the bar, is the widow of a colleague of the Deputy Labour Commissioner. It will be useful to quote the letter in extenso :- "The bearer of my letter is a man from my village, his case No. is 40-G which is pending in your office since 1982 - he is a poor man. Kindly help him and send his file for a quick disposal - he has been running around for quite sometime. I will be very grateful if you help him out." W e have given a thoughtful consideration to the contents of this letter and we must confess that we have not been able to discern anything so as to entitle the employer to contend that the disputes were referred for adjudication to the Labour Court at Meerut on account of the letter of this lady. She merely made a request that the case of the bearer of the letter may be disposed of expeditiously. It is no body's case that the references were made by the State Government on account of the said letter. The jurisdiction to make a reference was of the State Government alone. On the contrary, we find that on 5th Jan. 1984, the Secretary to the Government in the Labour Department thought it expedient to make the reference of the disputes to the Labour Court at Meerut as he felt that Simbhaoli was nearer to Meerut than Ghaziabad. 7. The other reason given is that it would be against the principles of natural justice if the case is heard by the Labour Court at Meerut. This reason is as vague as it could possibly be. It was neither the case of the employer before the State Government nor is it its case here that the Presiding Officer of the Labour court at Meerut is in any way biased either against the employer or in favour of the workmen. Assuming, the State Government referred the disputes for adjudication to the Labour Court at Meerut on extraneous considerations, even then the question of the violation of the principles of natural justice will not arise. Assuming, the State Government referred the disputes for adjudication to the Labour Court at Meerut on extraneous considerations, even then the question of the violation of the principles of natural justice will not arise. Convenience or inconvenience of a party has no connection with the observance of the principles of natural justice. It will be noted here that from a perusal of the application made by the employer to the State Government for the transfer of the proceedings from Meerut to Ghaziabad it is apparent that the sole emphasis was the convenience of the parties. The employer has emphasised in the application that Ghaziabad will be a more convenient venue from all points of view. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the reasons which have been given by the State Government in support of the impugned order in the first place are not substantial, in the second place are really non-existent and in the third place are extraneous. 8. We have before us the objection preferred by the petitioner Sangh on behalf of the workmen before the State Government in reply to the application made on behalf of the employer to transfer the proceedings. A number of objections have been raised. One of the objections is that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Meerut was at one time in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service of the State. Curiously enough, the State Government has not dealt with any of the pleas raised by or on behalf of the workmen in opposition to the request made by the employer for the transfer of the proceedings. The failure on the part of the State Government to do so is, in our opinion, fatal and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground as well. 9. Having come to the conclusion that the impugned order deserves to be quashed, the question still remains as to whether we should direct the State Government to give a fresh decision upon the application made by the employer. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the matter, we feel that in the instant case such a direction should not be given. Having come to the conclusion that the impugned order deserves to be quashed, the question still remains as to whether we should direct the State Government to give a fresh decision upon the application made by the employer. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the matter, we feel that in the instant case such a direction should not be given. We have already mentioned that the only reason given by the employer for seeking the transfer of the proceedings from Meerut to Ghaziabad is convenience of both the parties and according to the employer, Ghaziabad is nearer to Simbhaoli than Meerut. On the other hand, the workmen insist that Meerut is nearer to Simbhaoli than Ghaziabad. Be that as it may, no manifest injustice will be caused to the employer if the proceedings are allowed to be held at Meerut. We also feel that the disputes referred for adjudication should be resolved expeditiously, particularly when the Parliament has by a recent amendment made it statutory that the disputes should be disposed by the Tribunal or the Court concerned within a short time. There is a possibility of an industrial unrest being fermented on account of delay in the adjudication of the disputes. This will not only disturb the industrial peace in the area but will also affect the production in the establishment of the employer, thereby putting in jeopardy public interest. 10. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 8th August, 1984, passed by the State Government transferring the six industrial disputes from the Labour Court at Meerut to the Labour Court at Ghaziabad is quashed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.