Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 3277 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition by setting aside the order of dismissal and has substituted the dismissal with penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect and no back-wages. 2. We have heard Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Mukesh Rathod, learned Counsel for the respondent for final disposal of the appeal. 3. It appears that as per the appellant, the petitioner was appointed as driver in the year 1993 and he was made permanent in the year 1994. In the year 1997, because of his ill-health, he had been taking treatment through authorized doctor and remained absent for one month. Because of his absence, in the year 1998, order was passed for his dismissal from service. First Departmental Appeal was preferred in the year 1999 and vide order dated 24.12.1999 the appellant – respondent herein was ordered to be reinstated in service as a fresh driver and he was called upon to join the duty, and as per the appellant herein, instead of joining the duty, he preferred Second Appeal and awaited the decision. In the meantime, as per the appellant herein, since the respondent did not join the duty, his name was deleted from the list of employees and, therefore, the respondent raised the dispute. Such dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) being Reference (LCS) No. 154 of 2001. The Labour Court, vide award dated 8.6.2011 dismissed the Reference, against which the respondent had preferred petition being Special Civil Application No. 3277 of 2012. The learned Single Judge in the SCA recorded that the Labour Court has dismissed the Reference on technical ground and ultimately, allowed the petition as referred to herein above. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before us. 4. We have heard Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned Single Judge in the SCA recorded that the Labour Court has dismissed the Reference on technical ground and ultimately, allowed the petition as referred to herein above. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before us. 4. We have heard Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel for the respondent. 5. It appears from the factual aspects recorded by the learned Single Judge that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that the Reference Court has dismissed the Reference on technical ground that no evidence regarding departmental inquiry was produced or no inquiry was conducted before the dismissal order was passed. If the said aspect is considered with the award passed by the Reference Court, it appears that the Reference Court has recorded that the departmental inquiry was conducted and the appeal was also preferred by the workman. 6. What was required to be decided in the Special Civil Application was whether the termination could be maintained or deletion of the name from the list could be maintained in absence of any further action by the appellant herein – respondent in the petition or not ? Apart from the above, even if the learned Single Judge found that the award passed by the Reference Court for dismissal was erroneous in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the matter could be remanded to the Reference Court for decision afresh, but in our view, straightaway, the order for reinstatement with the penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect could not have been ordered. We may also find that there are no reasons recorded as to why the relief deserves to be granted. In any case, such conclusion could be reached only if the reasons were recorded by the learned Single Judge on the aspects that the action of the appellant was illegal. We do not find it proper to discuss the said aspect further since the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides have also agreed that if the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration, they have no objection for such purpose. Suffice it to state that since the reasons are not recorded for granting of the relief, the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for consideration afresh. 7. Suffice it to state that since the reasons are not recorded for granting of the relief, the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned Single Judge for consideration afresh. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Special Civil Application No. 3277 of 2012 shall be heard afresh by the learned Single Judge and after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides, appropriate orders in accordance with law will be passed. 8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.