Judgment Amareshwar Sahay, J.-The Management of Bokaro Steel Plant Ltd. has challenged the award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro dated 19.4.2001 as contained in Annexure-10 to this application, whereby the Labour Court in an answer to the reference made to it, held that the action of the Management in dismissing the workman from service of the company by office order dated 23.5.1992 was illegal, improper and unjustified and consequently the workman was directed to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 2. As it appears that the case of the Management is that the workman Alamdar Khan was appointed as welder/Gas Cutter on 10.12.1972. He while in service contracted another marriage during the lifetime of his first wife without permission of the Management which according to the Management was an act of gross misconduct. It is said that at the time of entering in the service the workman had made a declaration that he was unmarried and subsequently in the year 1974 he informed the Management that he married Anwari Khatoon, on 17.6.1974 at Gaya and accordingly the name of his wife Anwari Khatoon was recorded in his personal file as his wife. In the year 1990 the said wife of the workman made a written complaint to the Management that Alamdar Khan had contracted another marriage with one Ajmeri Khatoon, daughter of Md. Jafiruddin Khan of Village-Hridya Chak, P.S.Mehandia, District-Jehanabad and was living with her. The Management made an inquiry and thereafter found it to be a true and then initiated a departmental proceeding against the concerned workman and accordingly, he was charge-sheeted for committing misconduct in contracting another marriage during the lifetime of his wife. An Inquiry Committee was constituted to enquire into the charge and thereafter on the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Committee, which held the charge of misconduct against the petitioner proved, the workman was dismissed from service of the company. The concerned workman thereafter made a demand through his Union for setting aside his dismissal and for his reinstatement. The matter was referred to the appropriate Government and then the dispute was referred by the Government to the Labour Court for adjudication, "as to whether the termination of services of the concerned workman Md. Alamdar Khan, welder staff, was proper, if not, to what relief workman is entitled to". 3. The matter was referred to the appropriate Government and then the dispute was referred by the Government to the Labour Court for adjudication, "as to whether the termination of services of the concerned workman Md. Alamdar Khan, welder staff, was proper, if not, to what relief workman is entitled to". 3. On the other hand the case of the workman is that his termination from service is illegal; arbitrary and unjustified. He contracted marriage with Anwari Khatoon in the year 1974 and out of the their wedlock six children were born and he was living with his wife and children. He did not contract any other marriage with any Ajmeri Khatoon daughter of Md. Jafiruddin Khan of Village-Hridya Chak, P.S.-Mehandia District-Jehanabad. His further case is that Enquiry Committee did not conduct the enquiry in a free and impartial manner and it acted only on the dictate of the Management without finding' the truth. In course of enquiry neither the complainant Anwari Khatoon nor her children or her parents or any of the relative or any independent witness was examined before the Enquiry Committee in support of the charge. 4. The Labour Court on consideration of the materials and evidence adduced before it by the impugned Award held that the termination of the workman was illegal, improper and unjustified and thereby ordered for reinstatement of the concerned workman with full back wages and other consequential benefits as has already been noticed above. 5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management submitted that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse since the Labour Court at one hand held that the disciplinary proceeding against workman was set on motion on the basis of the written complaint, which the workman categorically denied and, therefore, it was a matter of surprise that the Management could neither produce her nor the said Ajmeri Khatoon before the Labour Court, despite sufficient opportunity having been given to the Management to justify their action, but the Management failed to establish the charge and on the other hand the Labour Court rejected the petition filed by the Management for producing said Anwari Khatoon as a witness by an order as contained in Annexure-9 dated 23.9.2000 to the writ petition. He further submitted that there were several other documentary evidence on the record i.e. Ext.-M-1 to Ext.-M-11, which clearly established the charge against the concerned workman, but the Labour Court failed to appreciate the same in proper manner. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan further submitted that the standard of proof in domestic enquiry is quite different from a criminal trial. In the domestic enquiry the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probability whereas in criminal trial the charge has to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2-concerned workman submitted that the domestic enquiry held by the Management holding the workman guilty for contracting second marriage during the lifetime of his first wife was already held by the Labour Court that the same was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and, accordingly, the said enquiry was held to be illegal, unfair and improper.. Thereafter the Management was allowed to adduce further evidence to justify its action vide order dated 28.7.1999. The said order holding the domestic enquiry illegal, unfair and unjustified has been annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. 7. I find that at the initial stage itself when the concerned workman made his demand for his reinstatement through his Union as contained in Annexure-1/1. at paragraph 10 thereof it has been specifically stated that Smt. Anwari Khatoon or any of her children or parents or any relatives was not examined before the Enquiry Committee and no' witness was adduced to prove the fact that Ajmeri Khatoon is his second wife. In spite of the said objection raised by the concerned workman, the Management did not choose to adduce any evidence or examine either Anwari Khatoon or Ajmeri Khatoon or any of their relatives to establish the charge. As a matter of fact the petition filed by the Management to produce Anwari Khatoon as a witness was filed when the case was already fixed for final argument. ... It is only after more than 9 months, the Management filed an application for examining Anwari Khatoon as a witness and, therefore, the Labour Court rightly held that if the Management was so interested in examining Anwari Khatoon as a witness, it could have examined her prior to the closing of the evidence, but that was not done. 8. ... It is only after more than 9 months, the Management filed an application for examining Anwari Khatoon as a witness and, therefore, the Labour Court rightly held that if the Management was so interested in examining Anwari Khatoon as a witness, it could have examined her prior to the closing of the evidence, but that was not done. 8. There is no dispute that in such a proceeding like the proceeding before the Labour Court or any other domestic enquiry the charge is not required to be proved like the criminal trial beyond all reasonable doubt, but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer/ Presiding Officer performs a quasi judicial function, who is bound to analyse the documents and evidence adduced before it, as to arrive at a conclusion to hold that the charge is established on the basis of materials on record. Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon as reported in (2009)2 SCC 541 has held that on failure to examine an important witness during the enquiry proceedings the entire proceeding is vitiated. 9. In the present case admittedly, neither Anwari Khatoon nor any of her children or any of her parent or relatives nor Ajmeri Khatoon have been examined on behalf of the Management to establish the charge against the concerned workman and therefore, in my view the Presiding Officer has rightly held that the Management failed to establish the charge against the concerned workman and accordingly, set aside the order of dismissal of the workman from service passed by the Management and directed to reinstate him with full back wages and other benefits. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned Award. 10. Accordingly, in view of the findings and discussion made above having found no merit, the writ application is dismissed. 11. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to the costs.