1. The present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants- original defendants to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajkot dated 19/12/1987 in Regular Civil Suit No. 838/1987 by which the learned trial Court has decreed the suit preferred by the respondent-original plaintiff by quashing and setting aside the order of discharge/dismissal dated 16-17/07/1987 by holding that the same is in breach of principles of natural justice and illegal and granting permanent injunction restraining the appellants-original defendants from implementing the said order as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Rajkot dated 14/12/1988 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 15/1988 by which the learned appellate Court has partly allowed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court granting declaration and permanent injunction however modifying the said decree by observing that the respondent-original plaintiff shall be entitled to recover only 50% back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while admitting the present Second Appeal, the learned Single Judge formulated/framed the following substantial questions of law;
(1) Whether the judgment of the first appellate Court is not vitiated by total non-application of mind in as much as no reasons are assigned for the conclusions arrived at. If so, what is its effect?
(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower Courts were right in law in holding that there was breach of principles of natural justice?
(3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the lower Courts were right in law in holding that the delinquent was not permitted to cross examine witnesses?
(4) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the lower Courts were right in holding that the delinquent could not be dealt with for the misconduct established against him?
(5) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower Courts were right in law in holding that since the notice for dismissal order for discharge could not be passed?
(6) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the lower Courts were right decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.
3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court, it appears that the present Second Appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside considering the substantial question of law no. 1 and the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned appellate Court as no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the learned appellate Court for the conclusion arrived at confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. It appears that the learned appellate Court has disposed of the said appeal in a most casual manner and without even appreciating the jurisdiction of the learned appellate Court. No reasons have been assigned by the learned appellate Court while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The learned appellate Court was required to consider all the issues in detail and consider the case of the parties on merits and discuss the same and only thereafter he was required to come to his own conclusion. No reasons have been assigned while confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and, therefore, it can be said that there is non application of mind by the learned appellate Court. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the learned appellate Court to decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law and on its own merits considering the provisions of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present Second Appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Rajkot dated 14/12/1988 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 15/1988 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned appellate Court to decide and dispose of the said appeal in accordance with law and on its own merits and to pass a reasoned order and to consider the evidence in detail after framing proper issues for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one year from today. The present Second Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
5. Registry is directed to send the writ of this order as well as the Record and Proceedings of the case to the learned appellate Court immediately but not later than 16/07/2012.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji