7.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials available on record, it is to be pointed out that the Labour Court has not discussed the evidence placed by both the parties and has not given a finding as to how it is satisfied that based on the documents produced, it has been established that the petitioners were only casual labourers. In fact, the discussion starts from paragraph 8 of the award. Paragraph 8 states the case of the petitioners/workmen; Paragraph 9 places on record the submissions of the respondent; Paragraph 10, the Court has referred to the decisions relied on by the respondent Management and Paragraph 11 alone appears to be the finding of the Labour Court. However, even in paragraph 11 the Labour Court has only stated that on perusal of records, it seems that the petitioners were engaged as casual labourers, they have engaged only for temporary period to fulfil statutory obligations of production of yarn and since they were engaged as casual labourers the question of violation of Section 25F, 25B and 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act does not arise. However, the Labour Court has not given reasons as to why on perusal of the records it was convinced that the petitioners were only casual labourers. This finding was essential because the Labour Court ought to have assigned reasons as to how it was satisfied that the petitioners were only casual labourers. The petitioners have produced 19 documents of which one of the document as Ex.P.11 which is an ESI card. The Labour Court has not rendered any finding on the effect of the said document. That apart, the Labour Court has also not given any finding as to what is the effect of the payment registers produced by the Management viz., Exs.R.1 to R.99. Failure to render a finding on these aspects, renders the impugned award as a non-speaking award and devoid of reasons. This is sufficient to hold that the impugned award is unsustainable in law.
