the First Respondent was entitled to the relief sought. It must, at once, be pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Meenakshisundaram Textiles -vs- M/s.Valliammal Textiles Ltd. [(2011) 3 CTC 168] after referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Swaran Lata Ghosh -vsH.K.Banerjee [(1969) 1 SCC 709], State of Tamil Nadu -vsS.Thangavel [(1997) 2 SCC 349], Balraj Taneja -vs- Sunil Madan [(1999) 8 SCC 396], Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan -vs- Hari Prasad Bhuyan [(2003) 1 SCC 197], Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya -vs- Anil Panjwani [(2003) 7 SCC 350], and State of Punjab -vs- Bhag Singh [(2004) 1 SCC 547], has reiterated the settled legal position that even in the absence of the Defendant contesting in a suit, the Court is legally bound to give reasons for granting the claim of the Plaintiff and in the absence of such adjudication of the claim, the decree passed cannot be sustained in law. There is no discussion with reference to any of the documents produced or from the deposition of the witness in the award passed by the Labour Court as to how the Respondent was entitled to the relief sought as prayed for the mere asking and as such, the same cannot stand judicial scrutiny. At the same time, it cannot also be lost sight of the fact that the Petitioner has rather adopted a very casual and cavalier approach in contesting the proceedings before the Labour Court and the explanation for the delay in taking steps to set aside the exparte award is seeming desultory though it is for a short period of 55 days.
