JUDGMENT 1. - The Employees' Compensation Commissioner, Kota (hereinafter 'the Commissioner') vide his judgment dated 10-10-2001 allowed the respondent-claimant's (hereinafter 'the claimant') claim under Section 22 of the Workmen' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the 1923 Act') as it obtained at the relevant time and awarded a sum of Rs. 76,312/- inclusive of interest as compensation to the claimant for a purported injury suffered by him on 14-11-1997 while in the alleged employment of the appellant-non claimant (hereinafter 'the non claimant'). It was further directed that in the event the award amount of Rs. 76,312/- was not deposited within thirty days of the judgment with the Commissioner, further interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment would be payable. Aggrieved, the non claimant has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the 1923 Act. 2. The claimant's case before the Commissioner was that while he was engaged as a loader on a dumper owned by the non claimant, on 14-11- 1997 he suffered various injuries owing to an accident while loading goods on the dumper. It was stated that at the time relevant to the accident, the claimant was 40 years of age and earning Rs. 1800/- per month as salary. Relying upon a disability certificate, evidencing 30% disability, compensation of Rs. 35,803/- with interest thereon as also penalty for non payment of compensation within time as mandated in the 1923 Act was sought. The non claimant filed reply of denial to the claim. It was stated that neither the claimant was its employee nor did the claimant suffer any injury on 14-11-1997, as stated in the claim petition, arising from his employment. It was submitted that the non claimant firm had been closed for over five years prior to the alleged incident on 14-11-1997. The claim petition was false and to be dismissed, was the prayer of the non claimant. 3. On pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed four issues. The first related to the question as to whether the claimant was in the employment of the non claimant on 14-11-1997. The second issue was whether the claimant was injured in the course of his employment which had a causal link to the injuries when the claimant was 40 years of age and drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per month. The second issue was whether the claimant was injured in the course of his employment which had a causal link to the injuries when the claimant was 40 years of age and drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per month. The third issue related to the question of claimant's loss of earning capacity at 30% as agitated in the claim petition. Finally as the fourth issue, the Commissioner was to determine the question of relief. The claimant examined himself as a witness in support of his claim and exhibited his medical reports including the certificate of disability showing 30% disability purportedly suffered by the claimant in the accident. One Raju was also examined as Pw.2 in support of the claim. The non claimant on its part produced two witnesses Dw.1 Dilip Kumar and Dw.2 Mushtaq Ali denying the claim of the claimant's purported employment with the non claimant or salary paid to him exhibiting a certificate of the Commercial Taxes Department evidencing the closure of non claimant's business over five years prior to the date of the alleged accident. 4. Vide the impugned judgment dated 10-10-2001, the Commissioner held that the claimant was employed with the non claimant on 14-11- 1997 when he suffered injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment. It was held that the claimant was 40 years of age and drawing Rs. 1800/- per month as wages. Relying upon the certificate of disability i.e. Ex.P-4 the commissioner concluded that the claimant suffered 30% disability. Consequently the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 66,312/- as compensation plus 10,000/- as interest thereon. The said amount was to be deposited with the Commissioner within 30 days of the judgment, failing which the aggregate amount of Rs. 76,312/- was to carry further interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment of the award amount to the claimant. 5. Mr. Rajesh Mootha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant non claimant in this appeal has submitted that the impugned judgment dated 10-10-2001 is an unreasoned one and more in the nature of executive fiat and not a quasi judicial determination. It has been submitted that the Commissioner as a quasi judicial authority was under an obligation to pass a reasoned award. It has been submitted that the Commissioner as a quasi judicial authority was under an obligation to pass a reasoned award. Contrary to the mandated obligation, counsel submitted, the impugned judgment dated 10-10-2001 does not even address the respective evidences, more particularly that relating to the specific case of the non claimant that the claimant was not in his employment on 14-11-1997 or at any other time nor did he suffer any injury on the said day in any accident arising out of or in the course of employment. Further as per certificate of the Commercial Taxes Department, the firm of the non claimant had ceased operation over five years prior to the alleged incident. Counsel submitted that aside of above, there was no evidence of any probative worth with regard to salary of the claimant while in the employment of the non claimant allegedly on 14- 11-1997 or ever and in this view of the matter the Commissioner could not have taken into account and reckoned any amount of wages in excess of the minimum wages for an unskilled worker (as the claimant stated himself to be a loader) at the time of the alleged accident. It has been further submitted that the certificate of disability Ex.P-4 relied upon by the claimant was not admissible in evidence, inasmuch as the Doctor who purportedly signed and issued it was not examined before the Commissioner and hence no opportunity to cross examine the doctor was allowed to the non claimant. Counsel submitted that the injuries allegedly suffered by the claimant was not scheduled in the 1923 Act and consequently without assessment of loss of earning capacity by a registered medical practitioner or an expert estimation of the compensation payable to the claimant could not have been lawfully made. It has been finally submitted that as against the compensation of Rs. 35,803/- sought, the Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 66,312/- (much in excess) with a direction to pay further Rs. 10,000/- as interest thereon aggregating to Rs. 76,312/- within 30 days of the judgment by way of a deposit with him, failing which the whole amount Rs. 76,312/- was to carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment. 6. Heard learned counsel for the non claimant and perused the material available on record. 7. 10,000/- as interest thereon aggregating to Rs. 76,312/- within 30 days of the judgment by way of a deposit with him, failing which the whole amount Rs. 76,312/- was to carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment. 6. Heard learned counsel for the non claimant and perused the material available on record. 7. As an appellate forum this court is under a duty to ensure that the judgments passed by the courts/ quasi judicial authority below are not sustained if they are mechanical in nature or contrary to the first principles of adjudication. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.L Tripathi v. State Bank of India and Others, [ 1984(1) SCC 43 ] has held that the rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is akin to the principles of natural justice and that every quasi judicial order therefore entails, as of necessity, giving of reasons for the conclusions arrived at by the statutory authority. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rangi International Limited v. Nova Scotia Bank [ (2013)7 SCC 160 ] and in para 3 of the judgment it has been held:- "The Competition commission as well as the Competition Appellate Tribunal are exercising very important quasi-judicial functions. The orders passed by the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal can have far-reaching consequences. Therefore, the minimum that is required of the Commission as well as the Appellate Tribunal is that the orders are supported by reasons, even briefly. However, the impugned orders are bereft of any reasons in support of the conclusions. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the impugned orders challenged herein cannot be sustained." 8. Reverting to the facts of the present appeal, the impugned judgment dated 10-10-2001 falls foul of the enunciation of the law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereunder every quasi judicial authority is under a mandatory duty to give reasons in support of its judgment/determination. A bare look at the impugned judgment indicates that while deciding issues No.1,2 and 3 neither the evidence produced by the claimant and non claimant has been considered nor reasons for the conclusion on the issues framed are set out. The impugned judgment is thus palpably an unreasoned one and cannot be termed a quasi judicial determination as warranted in law. The impugned judgment is thus palpably an unreasoned one and cannot be termed a quasi judicial determination as warranted in law. For this reason alone it is liable to be set aside. 9. Aside of aforesaid, it is also evident from the impugned judgment that the certificate of disability of the claimant was not got proved by the doctor who issued it nor was such a doctor cross-examained. Admittedly the claimant stated to have suffered a injury which was not a scheduled injury under the 1923 Act. Consequently in terms of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the 1923 Act, it was a mandatory requirement that the said disability certificate had to be proved by the Doctor who issued the same and he assessed the loss of earning capacity. This was not done and consequently the said disability certificate was not admissible in evidence. No compensation based thereon could have been determined by the Commissioner. Further as against the claim of Rs. 35,803/- by the claimant, compensation of Rs. 66,312/- was awarded by the Commissioner without any reason whatsoever having assigned therefor. 10. The up shot of the aforesaid discussion is that this appeal under Section 30 of the 1923 Act deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 10-10-2001 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for address afresh in accordance with law and observations recorded herein above.On receipt of the record and a certified copy of this order, the Commissioner is directed to decide the claim petition afresh within a period of six months after due notice to the claimant at the address recorded in the claim petition.The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to take required steps immediately.Appeal allowed. *******