JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (in short “The Act”) by the applicants being aggrieved by the order passed in W.C.No.43 of 2004, dated 15.05.2007 by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Circle I, Guntur (in short “The Commissioner”). 2. The appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein were the Applicants. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were the respondents being the owner and insurer before the Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after will be referred to as arrayed before the learned Commissioner. 3. Applicants are the father and mother of the deceased Rudrapati Pravallika who is an agricultural coolie, aged 19 years getting Rs.125/- per day. O.P.No.1 is owner and O.P.No.2 is the insurer of the tractor bearing No.AP-7-N-684 and trailer bearing No. AP-7-N-685. Deceased worked as a coolie under O.P.No.1, on 13.01.2004he picked up the coolies to Thangellamudi village to work in the fields at Uppalapadu village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District. While so, at about 6:30 PM during the return journey, an Auto bearing No. AP-7-X-5965 hit the tractor and the deceased died on the spot a crime. Applicants pray for the compensation @ Rs.2,50,000/-. The Learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of the amount granted as compensation, the applicants preferred the Appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the order impugned is not sustainable since it is not supported by any reasons. He would submit that the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner for passing orders afresh by considering the material on record. Learned counsel for the respondent also fairly conceded that the order impugned is shorn of any details for not considering the plea of the applicants. 6. It is a principle of settled law that any order passed without reasons is not sustainable under Law. First, recording of reasons is mandated in orders as they serve multiple purposes. Primarily, a reasoned order offers clarity to the stakeholders of justice delivery system, it makes the parties aware of why a certain claim is allowed and why a certain contention is negated. Further, it creates a better opportunity for the courts sitting in appeal/revision to identify the examination adopted in the order. Primarily, a reasoned order offers clarity to the stakeholders of justice delivery system, it makes the parties aware of why a certain claim is allowed and why a certain contention is negated. Further, it creates a better opportunity for the courts sitting in appeal/revision to identify the examination adopted in the order. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 summarized the law on recording of reasons observing that it is intended to serve the wider principle of justice, and it also ensures that the discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. 7. In Ram Sankar Sahoo v. State of W.B., 2018 SCC Online Cal 3199 the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that an order without reasons is no order in the eye of law. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in T.C.Rajaratnam (died) Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (2022) 4 ALT 246 reiterated the principle that reasons are heartbeat of any decision. 8. In New India Assurance Company Ltd., Vs M.Lakshmi Ramateertham and others, 2022 Live Law (AP) 122, this Hon’ble Court at para Nos. 24 to 28, while emphasizing on The Workmen Compensation Rules, 1924, held thus; “29. In view of the statutory provisions, the Commissioner in its judgment should have framed necessary issues and concisely recorded his findings on those issues with reasons for his findings.” 9. As seen from the impugned order, the order was passed without assigning any reasons. No whisper about the pleadings, evidence placed on record much less documents filed in support of the claim. The applicants are the parents of the deceased. Challenge made by the applicants against order impugned on the point of quantum of compensation which is based on factual aspects of the matter. It is surprising to note that, the Learned Commissioner without appreciating the material on record passed cryptic order. 10. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity since order impugned speaks nothing except the result. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, for passing orders afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, for passing orders afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed.