Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—Admit. Learned Counsel Mr. Rathod appears for the respondent workman and waives service. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing on both sides, the appeal is finally heard. 2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 16.01.2013 passed by learned single Judge of this Court in SCA No. 13993 of 2010, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the petition and confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court. 3. Upon hearing learned Counsel appearing on both sides and after perusal of the prayers made in the petition, it appears that the subject-matter of the petition before learned single Judge was, whether the award dated 09.04.2010 passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement without back-wages was proper or not. It is true that by earlier order dated 24.02.2009 in MCA No. 4 of 2008, the reference restored was also challenged but the pertinent aspect is that, after restoration of the reference, the matter was examined on merits and thereafter the Labour Court had passed the award dated 09.04.2010. Under the circumstances, the order dated 24.02.2009 for restoration of the reference can be said to had merged with the final award passed on 09.04.2010. Therefore, the subject-matter in the special civil application was, whether the award of Labour Court dated 09.04.2010 was legal or not, or whether any interference was required to be made to the award dated 09.04.2010 passed by the Labour Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India or not. 4. Whereas in the reasons recorded by learned single Judge, at Para 5 it has been observed as under: “5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record. The petitioner has challenged the order restoring the Reference at this stage, which could have been challenged at the relevant point of time and now at this stage, it cannot be entertained. Considering the evidence on record, the order of the Labour Court is upheld.” 5. The aforesaid shows that learned single Judge has proceeded on the basis that the order for restoration of the reference was under challenge and there is no discussion so far as the award for reinstatement dated 09.04.2010 is concerned. There is no reasoning whatsoever nor there is any examination on the said aspect which was the main subject matter of the petition. There is no reasoning whatsoever nor there is any examination on the said aspect which was the main subject matter of the petition. 6. It is hardly required to be stated that when this Court exercises the power under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, reasons are required to be recorded of the judicial scrutiny which has been undertaken by the Court so as to find out as to whether the award, which was the subject matter of the petition, is legal or not, or whether any interference is called for or not. It is true that detailed reasons as that of deciding the appeal may not be required but at the same time judicial scrutiny should be to the perversity in the finding recorded or any error apparent on the face of law committed by the lower Court. 7. As there is no discussion whatsoever to such point in the decision, the order passed by learned single Judge cannot be sustained. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside, with the direction that SCA No. 13993 of 2010 shall stand restored before learned single Judge and the matter shall be examined on merits in accordance with law. Both the sides shall be at liberty to raise all contentions as are vavailable in law. 8. It was prayed by Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, that this Court may make necessary observation for compliance of the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, pending the special civil application. We find that when the main special civil application is restored before learned single Judge, if otherwise available in law, the respondent may make appropriate application for such prayer. 9. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. * * * * *