Judgment :- 1. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner aggrieved by the order dt. 15.10.2010 in ATA 607(6) 2006 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, for short the ‘Tribunal’ allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-Chinmaya Mission Hospital and setting-aside the order dt. 21.4.2006 Annexure-D of the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner in a proceeding under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for short the ‘Act’, modifying the order allotting code number K N 5115 to M/s Chinmaya Mission Hospital by including Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, as well as Chinmaya Mission Hospital Institute of Nursing under the same code number as a common establishment, has presented this petition. 2. Petition is opposed by filing Statement of Objections, seeking to sustain the order impugned as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order impugned. Respondent preferred appeal bearing No. ATA 607(6)2006 before the Tribunal calling in question the order dt. 21.4.2006 of the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner contending that the petitioner, a Trust engaged in promoting education did not have staff strength in excess of 20, and that there was no inter-connection between Chinmaya Mission hospital and Chinmaya Mission Hospital Institute of Nursing and Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, and hence no justification to club them together as one establishment. Moreover the establishments being separate, and distinct have neither functional integrality nor financial integrity or common administration. 4. Tribunal, by the order impugned, without discussing the relevant material placed before the EPF Authorities, concluded that both the establishments were not one and the same and without recording reasons or findings, jumped to a conclusion that they were two separate entities having neither functional integrity nor financial integrity and accordingly. The order cannot but be characterized as cryptic passed in a cavalier manner and hence irrational. 5. It is elsewhere said that giving of reasons encourages a careful examination of relevant issues, the elimination of extraneous considerations and consistency in decision making. The order cannot but be characterized as cryptic passed in a cavalier manner and hence irrational. 5. It is elsewhere said that giving of reasons encourages a careful examination of relevant issues, the elimination of extraneous considerations and consistency in decision making. If those entitled to be heard have no right to know how a Tribunal resolved the issues in dispute at the hearing, they may well regard as an empty ritual, their legally conferred opportunity to be heard and to influence the Tribunal by producing material and evidence both oral and documentary to establish relevant facts, advancing arguments on the proper exercise of any discretion and resolution on any legal questions and challenge opponent’s case since the procedure followed by courts in India are in the nature of adversarial system of justice. Unless the Tribunal makes finding of disputed facts, explains the exercise of discretion by indicating the consideration that the Tribunal has taken into account and relative weight assigned to them and give its answers to any questionsto any questions of law, there can be no assurance that the Tribunal discharged its obligations to base its decisions upon the material presented by the parties rather than on extraneous considerations. 6. It is also said that a decision is irrational in the strict sense of the term if it is unreasoned, lacking ostensible link or comprehensive justification. Absurd or perverse orders may be presumed when no reasons are assigned. Absence of connection between the evidence and the ostensible reasons for the justifications, reasons displaying no adequate basis for the decision or in respect of the decision, and in the absence of adequate and intelligible reasons, the orders cannot but be characterized as irrational. 7. A decision could be struck down when it is shown that substantial prejudice has resulted from a failure on the part of the Tribunal or the decision maker to administer how an issue of law or fact was resolved or a disputed question decided by administering lack of reasoning muchless substantial doubt over the decision making process. It is by now well settled that reason is the heartbeat of very conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless, as observed by the Apex Court in State of Orissa –v- Dhaniram Luhar( AIR 2004 SC 1794 ). The Apex Court in Ganesh Beedi Works .Vs. It is by now well settled that reason is the heartbeat of very conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless, as observed by the Apex Court in State of Orissa –v- Dhaniram Luhar( AIR 2004 SC 1794 ). The Apex Court in Ganesh Beedi Works .Vs. C.I.T.Mysore( (2005) 2 SCC 329 ), observed that in an order of confirmation repetitive reasons elaborately may not be necessary but when arguments are advanced, points are urged, they have to be dealt with and even then reasons for confirmation have to be indicated though in appropriate cases they may be briefly stated. Recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure. Reasons are harbinger between the mind of maker of the decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at. They substitute subjectivity with objectivity, as observed in Alexander Machinery (dudley) Ltd., Vs. Crabtree reported in 1974 LCR 120. Thus the Apex Court held that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. 8. In the light of the aforesaid well settled principles of law and applying the same to the case on hand, there is no doubt in my mind that the Tribunal failed to assign reasons and findings except conclusions and did make no reference to the material placed before the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner who passed the order impugned in the appeal. In fact there is not even a discussion over why the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner to club two establishment as one common establishment for the purpose of the Act nor reasons pointing to perversity of the findings recorded by the authority. In short, the failure on the part of the Tribunal to assign reasons to differ from the view taken by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner to allow the appeal, as rightly contended, has occasioned denial of the justice to the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent points out to documents to prove that the establishments are separate and independent, as also perversity of findings recorded by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, clubbing the two institutions as one establishment. But those submissions arise for consideration by the Tribunal. Keeping the contentions open to be urged before the Tribunal and without going into its merit or demerit, I think it appropriate to remit the proceedings for consideration afresh. Provident Fund Commissioner, clubbing the two institutions as one establishment. But those submissions arise for consideration by the Tribunal. Keeping the contentions open to be urged before the Tribunal and without going into its merit or demerit, I think it appropriate to remit the proceedings for consideration afresh. In the result, the petition is allowed in part. The order dt. 15.10.2010 Annexure-H of the Tribunal is quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law by assigning reasons, findings and conclusions.