AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 688 ::1998 AIR SCW 352 ::1998 LAB. I. C. 483 ::1998 ( ) Lab LR 97 ::1998 (1) ADSC 225 ::1998 ADSC 1 225 ::1998 (1) UJ (SC) 368 ::1998 UJ(SC) 1 368 ::1998 (1) CurLR 625 ::(1998) 28 CorLA 149 ::(1998) 78 FacLR 332 ::1998 SCC (L&S) 481 ::(1998) 1 LabLJ 682 ::1998 (2) SCC 242 ::(1998) 1 Scale 34 ::1998 (92) FJR 546 ::(1998) 2 Lab LN 37 ::1998 (1) MadLW 811 ::1998 (2) SCT 256 ::1998 (1) ServLR 495 ::(1998) 1 UPLBEC 345 ::(1998) 1 Supreme 174 ::1999 (1) SRJ 340 ::(1998) 1 JT 18 (SC) ::1998 (1) JT 18

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Delhi)

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao , JJ

(A) Constitution of India , Art.226, Art.14— Writ petition - Dismissal in limine - Reasons, however brief must be given - Reason introduces clarity and excludes/minimises chances of arbitrariness. The High Court ought to give reasons at least briefly, while dismissing the writ petition in limine. The absence of reasons deprives the Supreme Court from knowing the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the matter in limine. It is an unsatisfactory method of disposal. The necessity to provide reasons, howsoever brief in support of the High Courts' conclusions is too obvious. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test the correctness of those reasons. Disposal of cases is no doubt important but quality of the judgment is equally, if not more, important. There is no point in shifting the burden to the higher Court either to support the judgment by reasons or to consider the evidence or law for the first time to see if the judgment needs a reversal.(Para 7 8) (B) Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (19 of 1952) , S.14B— Recovery of damages from defaulter - No limitation is prescribed - Rule that power should be exercised within....