JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J.
1. This Writ Petition is being finally disposed of with the consent of the Counsel for the parties. The arguments of Counsel for both the parties have been heard. The award was made on 31.10.1992 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court ex-parte. The award was challenged in Writ Petition No. Nill of 1993, wherein, it was observed by the Court that as the award was ex-parte, the petitioner had a right to make an application for recall of the said order and observing that the petitioner had an alternative remedy the Court declined to interfe under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it was directed that if the petitioner makes an application for recall of the ex-pane order, the labour Court shall consider the same in accordance with law after hearing the parties Counsel and pass an appropriate order within a period of 2 months from the date the application for recall of the ex-pane award is made and that the application for recall shall be filed within one month from the date of the order (6.1.1994). Thereafter, recall application was moved before the Labour Court. The recall application has been rejected by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court on 31.5.1995 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). The Petitioner Kumaon Kandal Vikas Nigam has sought quashing of the order dated 31.5.1995 passed by the respondent No. 1 (the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Annexure-5). Another prayer has been made for quashing the ex-parte award dated 31.10.1992. The order of the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-5 to the petition) has been assailed on the ground that the recall application of the petitioner has been rejected without assigning any reason. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has claimed that reason has been given in as much as it has been stated by the Presiding Officer that the award has been almost carried out. It is claimed that the award had been carried out in respect of some persons and not carried out in respect of others. Since there is no case that the award has been implemented in to, the part implementation of the award could not be a valid ground for rejecting the recall application. The prosecuting officer has narrated in his order the Chronology of events of the case and observed that the attitude of the employer was uncooperative from the very beginning however, it was nowhere set out in this application as to what ground had been set up by the petitioner in its recall application nor was any reason given in the order which promoted the officer to come to the conclusion that no sufficient cause has been disclosed by the employer for non-appearance before the Court.
2. There is always a distinction between the conclusions and the reasons leading to the conclusion, if the conclusion is given without supporting reasons the order is bad in law. This is precisely the case here. Consequently, there is no option than to quash the order dated 31.5.1995 (Annexure-5).
3. It has been claimed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity was given to file an affidavit in support of the recall application and that the application was rejected in hot haste.
4. For the reasons aforesaid the order dated 31.5.1995 (Annexure-5 to the petition) is quashed and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court is directed to give the petitioner an opportunity to support its recall application by an affidavit and an opportunity to the respondent Nos. 2 to 50 to file counter affidavit, if any, to controvert the recall application and then to dispose of the recall application . on merits by a speaking is a reasoned order after hearing both the parties, within two months from She date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said officer by the petitioner. The petitioner under takes to produce the certified copy of this order before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court within a month from today.
5. The original award itself has also been challenged in this writ petition but since the recall application is to be disposed of as per the aforesaid direction by this Court, the matter relating to the merits of the award is left open between the parties.
6. With the above observations, this writ petition is finally disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.