JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. No one appears on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice. 3. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.05.2001 passed by the respondent No.1 in Application No. M. W. Claim (71/90) [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] whereby, the claim application filed under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was allowed and the petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs.1,19,527.17/- (less payment + compensation) to all the workers whose details were given in the claim application. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is a Government of Bihar undertaking and during the relevant period, it had number of mines of different types of minerals situated both in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand. The Government of India through Ministry of Labour, issues notification under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 from time to time. By a notification No. S.O.960(E)/967(E) dated 25.10.1988, the Central Government revised minimum rates of wages payable to various categories of employees employed in different mines. In the Schedule to the said notification, four categories of work were classified with the following rates of minimum wages :- (i) Un-skilled Rs.13.45 (below ground) Rs. 15.30 (for work above ground) (ii) Semi-skilled Rs. 22.85 (below ground) Rs. 19.05 (above ground) (iii) Skilled Rs. 28.15 (below ground) Rs. 23.75 (above ground) (iv) Clerical Rs.23.75 A copy of the said notification was circulated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) vide his letter dated 07.12.1988. The respondent No.2 claiming himself to be the Inspector under Section 19(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 filed a claim under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before the respondent No.1 on 23.03.1990 in relation to 10 workmen employed in the Magnetite mine of M/s B.S.M.D.C Ltd. (the petitioner) in the district of Palamau claiming less payment of the wages to the workers amounting to Rs.21,723.86/- and Rs. 18,118.53/- totalling Rs.39,842.39/- apart from compensation of Rs. 3,98,423.90/-. Along with the claim application, a chart was enclosed showing that the said persons were being paid wages at the rate of Rs.15.30/- in respect of daily rated mazdoor, guard, compressor operator, peon, messenger, tractor driver, helper etc. The aforesaid amount was for the period from 01.01.1989 to 21.04.1989. 18,118.53/- totalling Rs.39,842.39/- apart from compensation of Rs. 3,98,423.90/-. Along with the claim application, a chart was enclosed showing that the said persons were being paid wages at the rate of Rs.15.30/- in respect of daily rated mazdoor, guard, compressor operator, peon, messenger, tractor driver, helper etc. The aforesaid amount was for the period from 01.01.1989 to 21.04.1989. Moreover, for the period from 22.04.1989 to 31.08.1989, the same was at the rate of Rs.19.05/- in respect of all persons except Rs.23.75/- for D.R.M Compressor Operator. 5. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the notification dated 25.10.1988, it would be evident that the rates prescribed in the notification were being actually paid. The applicant, however, claimed minimum rate of wages much higher than the rate prescribed in the notification and there was no basis for claim on the said rates, as all the persons working under the said category were being paid uniformly. After filing of the claim application, notices were issued to the petitioner for filing show cause. On 21.12.1992, a show cause was filed by the Management of the petitioner contending therein that all the workers are being paid minimum wages in terms with the notification. In support of its contention, wage sheet-cum-Muster roll were produced for consideration. Four workmen out of ten on 20.02.1993, submitted to the Mines Manager that they are being paid wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages notification of the Central Government. Although the pleadings were complete as far back as in the year 1992 itself, the matter remained pending for almost 9 years and there was no progress in the proceedings. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although the applicant was required to substantiate its claim by adducing oral and documentary evidence, but no evidence whatsoever was led by the respondent No.2 (applicant). It is also submitted that the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order without considering any material on record and only relied upon Explanation No.5 to the notification dated 25.10.1988 according to which the minimum wages will be payable at the equal rate payable to the regular employees. Nothing was produced to show as to what was the wages payable to the regular employees and whether the nature of work performed was similar. 7. Nothing was produced to show as to what was the wages payable to the regular employees and whether the nature of work performed was similar. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the documents placed on record, it appears that the respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order dated 15.05.2001, though directed the petitioner to make payment of the balance amount of the minimum wages as well as compensation, yet the said order is not based on any evidence adduced on behalf of the parties in the proceeding under Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 8. It is uncontroverted that the proceedings before the Competent Authority are quasi judicial proceedings. It is now well settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. It is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. 9. In the case of Director, Horticulture Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjivan Parshand, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 539 , it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: 9. ….......“Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” 10. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal and Ors. reported in (2004) 5 SCC 573 , the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized the need for reasons thus: 3. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.” 10. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal and Ors. reported in (2004) 5 SCC 573 , the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized the need for reasons thus: 3. …...... “The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind …....” 11. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Niranjan Maiti Vs. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhalbhum reported in (1978) Lab IC 337, considering the similar issue, has held as under: “8. In view of the above provisions and particularly of sub-s. (3), the Authority is bound to hear the applicant and the employer or give them an opportunity of being heard and decide the matter judicially. This means that the applicant and the employer would he entitled not only to examine themselves but also to examine witnesses and produce documents in support of their respective contentions. There cannot be a proper hearing without such an opportunity being afforded to them. This further means that if any of the parties produce witnesses and examines them, the other party is entitled to cross-examine them and since no appeal has been provided, the Authority need not record the statements of the witnesses made in their examination-in-chief and cross-examination in full, but it should make a memorandum of the substance of the deposition of each witness to be kept on the record so that it may appear to the satisfaction of all concerned that the Authority has considered and decided the matter judicially as required by the statute and not arbitrarily or according to his own notion of justice. Rule 29 of the Bihar Minimum Wages Rules 1951, which are rules duly made under S. 30 (1) of the Act, may also be referred to in this behalf. It provides as follows :- "29, Appearance of parties (1) If an application under sub-sec. Rule 29 of the Bihar Minimum Wages Rules 1951, which are rules duly made under S. 30 (1) of the Act, may also be referred to in this behalf. It provides as follows :- "29, Appearance of parties (1) If an application under sub-sec. (2) of S. 20 or S. 21 is entertained, the Authority shall serve upon the employer by registered post or specal messenger a notice in form IX to appear before him on a specified date with all relevant documents and witnesses, if any, and shall In form the applicant of the date so specified." The above rule also clearly indicates that the parties are entitled to produce all relevant documents and witnesses, if any, which they may like to produce in support of their respective contentions.” 17. The authority appointed to hear and decide the claims arising out of the payment of less than the minimum rates of wages has to discharge quasi judicial functions. In this connection, the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the case of Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co of India Ltd. V/s. Union of India reported in (1976) 2 SCC 981 : ( AIR 1976 SC 1785 ) may usefully apply to such quasi-judicial proceedings (at p. 1789 of AIR): "If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law." 12. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law." 12. In the facts of the present case, it was required by the respondent No.1 to look into the evidence available on record for the alleged violation of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Moreover, some of the workmen had given their letters to the petitioner that they have been paid the minimum wages and as such there was no violation of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 on the part of the petitioner. It further appears that the matter remained pending with the respondent No.1 for almost 11 years after filing of the claim application and as such passing the impugned order dated 15.05.2001 without appreciating any evidence available on record with regard to the alleged violation of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by the petitioner, cannot be said to be legally sustainable. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the judicial pronouncements, the impugned order dated 15.05.2001 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) is, hereby, quashed and set aside. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.