Order : Aggrieved by the award dated 18.7.2014 passed in Reference Case No. 75/2005, whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the concerned workman in service, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The FCI is a statutory body constituted under the Food Corporations Act, 1964. The Food Corporation of India Executive Staff Union raised a demand on behalf of the concerned workman, which after failure of conciliation proceeding, was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal vide reference dated 22.8.2005. 3. The petitioner asserts that the respondent was neither an employee nor a workman. He was not engaged through the Employment Exchange or any selection process. The respondent was never given appointment letter nor an office order for his appointment was issued by the petitioner-Corporation. The respondent was an employee of a contractor, who rendered some services at Sahebganj Depot of FCI. Before the Tribunal, the respondent appeared on 6.6.2012 as a witness and submitted affidavit with documents. In the meantime, Shri B. M. Prasad, the conducting lawyer for the petitioner expired and the petitioner-Corporation engaged another lawyer, who took time for filing Vakalatnama. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conducting advocate died during the pendency of Reference Case No. 75/2005. The petitioner has brought on record the resolution dated 21.11.2012 of the Dhanbad Bar Association, which held a condolence meeting on the death of late Brij Mohan Prasad. It is thus, contended that due to the death of the conducting lawyer, proper steps could not be taken in the matter though, in the meantime, the petitioner had engaged a counsel and had tried to collect the case record from the office of late B.M.Prasad. Referring to award dated 18.7.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award does not disclose any reason except, noticing evidence on affidavit and the circular of FCI. 6. Per contra, Mrs. M.M.Pal, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent, submits that on 5.3.2013 the petitioner was represented through an Advocate, who undertook to file Vakalatnama and the case was adjourned for 17.4.2013 for the Management’s evidence. However, no one appeared on behalf of the Management and the case was adjourned thereafter, on as many as three occasions. 6. Per contra, Mrs. M.M.Pal, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent, submits that on 5.3.2013 the petitioner was represented through an Advocate, who undertook to file Vakalatnama and the case was adjourned for 17.4.2013 for the Management’s evidence. However, no one appeared on behalf of the Management and the case was adjourned thereafter, on as many as three occasions. It is submitted that the respondent was initially engaged as casual worker in 1980 at FSD, Zamui where he worked as Messenger and Sweeper. The respondent was retrenched illegally and vide Reference Case No. 251/1990 the dispute was referred for adjudication, which ended in award dated 27.9.1995. It is stated that several casual labourers were regularized in service and the awards directing regularization on the basis of circular dated 6.5.1987 were confirmed by the High Court and in one of the cases, Civil Appeal No. 24172418/2014 filed by the workman was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17.2.2014. 7. Considering the rival contentions made on behalf of the parties, I find that the award dated 18.7.2014 is a non-speaking order. Neither the documents vide Exts. W/1 series and W/2 series, produced by the respondent, nor the stand taken by the parties, has been discussed in the award. The Preamble to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 makes it abundantly apparent that the Act makes provision for the “investigation and settlement of industrial disputes”, and for certain other purposes. Section 11 of the Act deals with procedure, powers and duties of authorities which includes courts and tribunals. Besides devising its own procedure, the court, tribunal, conciliation officer etc. have been vested with wide powers. Keeping in view the object behind the Industrial Disputes Act, the Industrial Tribunal was required to consider the evidence produced by the parties. Even otherwise, recording of reasons while adjudicating valuable rights of parties, is the mandate of law. The award dated 18.07.2014 is a non-speaking order. In “Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr.” (2012) 8 SCC 148 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, “44. It is settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. It is settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable, particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision-making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected.” 8. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit dated 9.9.2015 disclosing the name of the witness whom it wants to examine in support of its case. The petitioner further seeks recall of the witness, namely, Bhopal Tiwary for cross-examination. I find that it is not in dispute that the conducting lawyer died during the pendency of Reference Case No. 75/2005. As noticed above, on 5.3.2013 the counsel for the petitioner appeared and sought time for filing Vakalatnama thereafter, the case was adjourned for 17.4.2013, 23.5.2013, 1.7.2013 and on 18.7.2014 the matter was heard finally. The respondent has disclosed that after filing written statement the matter was listed on as many as 13 occasions however, the Management did not produce any document nor filed evidence in opposition. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that one opportunity should be granted to the Management for leading evidence. However, it is also a matter of record that there was serious laches on the part of the Management. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that one opportunity should be granted to the Management for leading evidence. However, it is also a matter of record that there was serious laches on the part of the Management. In the result, award dated 18.7.2014 is hereby, quashed with cost of Rs. 25,000/which shall be paid to the respondent within four weeks. The Management is permitted to examine one Ravi Ranjan, who is working as the Manager (General), as the petitioner-witness and the respondent shall be recalled for cross-examination. 10. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.