Judgment : Oral Judgment: 1. Rule, 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. With the consent of the Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. 3. The manner in which the Award has been written by the Judge of the 10th Labour Court at Mumbai leaves much to be desired. By the impugned Award, the reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was allowed by setting aside the termination dated 18th October 2004 and directing the reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and consequential benefits or in the alternative benefits under a scheme for voluntary retirement. 4. The contention of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that commencing from paragraph 13 of the Judgment, almost every aspect of the reasoning of the trial Judge is a verbatim reproduction of the Written Submissions, that were filed on behalf of the workman. With the assistance of the Counsel, the Written Submissions filed on behalf of the workman before the Labour Court on 1st April 2009, have been compared with the reasoning contained in the Award. A bare comparison would show that the reasons which are purportedly indicated in the Award are only a verbatim reproduction of the Written Submissions. 5. For instance, the findings in paragraph 14 of the Award correspond to the Written Submissions contained at page 7; the findings in paragraph 15 of the Award correspond to the Written Submissions at page 8; the findings in paragraph 17 of the Award correspond to the Written Submissions contained at page 9; the findings in paragraph 18 of the Award correspond to the Written Submissions contained at page 10; the findings in paragraph 19 of the Award correspond to what is stated in subparagraph (b) at page 10 of the Written Submissions; paragraph 20 of the Award is a verbatim extract from what is contained from page 11 of the Written Submissions; Paragraph 4 of the Award is extracted from sub paragraph (c) at page 11 of the Written Submissions. This exercise can be done and has been done for the rest of the Award. 6. There has been no application of mind whatsoever by the Labour Court to the merits of the rival contentions. This exercise can be done and has been done for the rest of the Award. 6. There has been no application of mind whatsoever by the Labour Court to the merits of the rival contentions. What purports to be reasons is nothing but a restatement of the Written Submissions filed by one party, namely by the Respondent. The manner in which, the Labour Court has proceeded is thoroughly unsatisfactory. The reasons which are to be indicated in a Judgment must be of the judicial officer. There is a clear distinction between submissions and reasons. The submission of a party in the form of Written Submission cannot be lifted bodily by the Judicial Officer by incorporating them as his own reasons. Even if the Judge is to agree with the submissions of one of the parties, the reasons and the language must be his own. Otherwise, the legitimacy of the judicial process would be eroded. This Court is required to take a serious view of the manner in which the Judge of the Labour Court has conducted himself and prepared the Award. 7. In these circumstances, the only appropriate order to pass would be to set aside the Award dated 23rd June 2009. The Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Award. 8. The President of the Industrial Court is requested to assign the reference to some other Court in order to facilitate the disposal of the proceedings on remand. A copy of the present Judgment shall be placed before the President of the Industrial Court; to be forwarded by the Registry.