JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order passed by learned Single Judge, in W.P.(L) no. 6173 of 2002 dated 03.11.2009. This writ petition was preferred by the original respondent no.2. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, quashed and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City and remanded the matter to the said Court for a fresh decision. Hence, original respondent has preferred this Letter Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant was enrolled as an employee of the respondent-Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro from 07.01.1972. Thereafter, the alleged misconduct was committed by the respondent in the year 1973. Charge-sheet was issued to this appellant on 10.11.1973 and following were the charges levelled against this appellant:- "You are hereby informed that you have rendered yourself liable for disciplinary action for having committed the following acts of misconduct:- (i) Riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour. (ii) Assaulting employee of the Company. (iii) Molestation of a woman employee. (iv)Commission of Act subversive of good behaviour and discipline of the Company." 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid charges levelled against him, the Inquiry Officer was appointed, Management Witness no.1 and Management Witness no.2 were also examined and ultimately the report was given by the Inquiry Officer, whereby, it is held that the charges levelled against this delinquent appellant are proved. Pursuant thereto, the disciplinary authority has taken a decision on 14.01.1975 for termination of the services of this appellant against which an application was preferred under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in Reference Case no. 39 of 1973. This application under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was dismissed by the Labour Court vide order dated 21.02.1995 against which writ petition bearing C.W.J.C no. 3268 of 1995 (R) was instituted by this appellant which was withdrawn vide order dated 05.08.1997 with liberty to raise industrial disputes. This appellant raised industrial disputes on 04.09.1997 (after approximately 22 years from the termination of services) and ultimately reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made on 20.09.1999 and Reference Case no. 3 of 2000 was instituted in the Labour Court at Bokaro Steel City. This Reference Case no. This appellant raised industrial disputes on 04.09.1997 (after approximately 22 years from the termination of services) and ultimately reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made on 20.09.1999 and Reference Case no. 3 of 2000 was instituted in the Labour Court at Bokaro Steel City. This Reference Case no. 3 of 2000 was allowed and award was passed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, dated 06.08.2001 (Annexure-5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), against which respondent-management preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(L) no. 6173 of 2002, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 03.11.2009, whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in Reference Case no. 3 of 2000 and remanded the matter to the Labour Court, keeping in mind the evidences given by the Management Witness no. 1 and Management Witness no. 2, which were not properly appreciated by the Labour Court and, therefore, the delinquent who was respondent no.2 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that no error has been committed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in quashing and setting aside the order of termination passed by the disciplinary authority on 14.01.1975. In fact, on the basis of the same charges, criminal case was instituted in which after investigation final form was filed. Thus, no charge-sheet was filed against this appellant even on criminal side for the very same allegation. Moreover, the authority who has terminated the services of this petitioner has no authority to terminate the services of this appellant. However, a lot of time has been wasted by respondents and the order of termination was passed in the year 1975 and now this appellant is on verge of retirement and hence the matter may not be referred to the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. Even otherwise also, looking to the evidences of M.W.-1 and M.W.-2, the charges levelled against this appellant has not been proved. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.11.2009 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Even otherwise also, looking to the evidences of M.W.-1 and M.W.-2, the charges levelled against this appellant has not been proved. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.11.2009 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while quashing and setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in Reference Case no. 3 of 2000, mainly on the basis of evidences given by M.W.-1 and M.W.-2. The charges are not to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts in a case like a criminal matter. On preponderance of probability, the charges ought to have been proved in the departmental proceeding. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Looking to the evidences given by M.W.-1 and M.W.-2, the charges levelled against the delinquent appellant have been clearly proved and hence this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) Charge-sheet was issued against this appellant on 10.11.1973. Charges have been referred herein above. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the departmental inquiry and looking to the evidences on record, especially of M.W.-1 and M.W.-2, the Inquiry Officer has given a report that charges levelled against this delinquent appellant have been proved. (ii) Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 14.01.1975 had terminated the services of this appellant. (iii) Thereafter, industrial disputes were raised and reference was made on 20.09.1999, i.e., after approximately a quarter of century, i.e., after 25 long years from the date of termination and Reference case no. 3 of 2000 was instituted. We have perused the award passed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. It appears that gross error has been committed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. M.W.-1 and M.W.-2 have given clear depositions before the Inquiry Officer which ought to have been kept in mind. Charges were not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt like before the Criminal Court. It appears that gross error has been committed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. M.W.-1 and M.W.-2 have given clear depositions before the Inquiry Officer which ought to have been kept in mind. Charges were not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt like before the Criminal Court. The yardstick which is applicable in a criminal matter of proving the charges is not applicable in the departmental proceeding. In the departmental proceeding, the charges are to be proved on preponderance of probability. We are not much analysing the award passed by the Labour Court at Bokaro, since the matter has already been remanded by the learned Single Judge to the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. We are not further going, in detail, of the evidences on record, but, suffice it to say that there is error apparent on the face of the record, looking to the award passed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in Reference Case no. 3 of 2000. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in remanding the matter to the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City to decide Reference Case no. 3 of 2000 on the basis of evidences on record. The Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City cannot pass an award without appreciating the evidences on record. There is bound to be a discussion of the evidences on record. There is bound to be application of mind about the evidences on record. 7. The aforesaid aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. If the management is seeking time for evidence, the same should have been allowed by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City in Reference Case no. 3 of 2000. 8. As a cumulative effect of aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in remanding the matter to the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City. It is expected from the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City to decide the matter in Reference Case no. 3 of 2000, as early as possible preferably within a period of six months. 9. Learned counsels for both the sides shall cooperate in the matter of hearing and the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City shall not grant further unnecessary adjournment. It is expected from the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City to decide the matter in Reference Case no. 3 of 2000, as early as possible preferably within a period of six months. 9. Learned counsels for both the sides shall cooperate in the matter of hearing and the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City shall not grant further unnecessary adjournment. If the management as well as workman is seeking to prefer the application to take the evidence, the same will be appreciated in accordance with law by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City without any loss of time. The evidences shall be taken by the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City which shall be produced by the parties who is applying for the same. Similarly the appellant can also led his evidence before the Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, if he so choses. 10. Thus, there being no substance, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed, with the aforesaid direction. 11. Stay if any granted earlier stands vacated. 12. If the record of the lower court has been received, the same shall be returned to the lower court immediately, if not sent. Letters Patent Appeal Dismissed.