JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Chakraborty for the respondent no. 1 Mr. K. Goswami, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 2 2. The present writ petition has been preferred in connection with the ex-parte Award No. 7/08/2010, passed by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 4/2008, by which the learned Labour Court has upheld the dismissal orders issued to 9 workmen on the basis of a domestic enquiry, held by the Management. 3. The brief facts of the case is that due to the death of a labourer in a hospital on 05.09.2012, riots were started on 06.09.2012 by the labourers of Konduli Tea Estate. Subsequently, 10 labourers, including the petitioners hererin, were suspended vide order dated 24.09.2002. Charge-sheets were issued to the 9 workmen on 18.10.2002, listing 7 charges against them. The petitioners replied to the charge sheet dated 18.10.2002 vide reply dated 23.10.2002. Thereafter, the Manager of the Tea Estate issued notice of enquiry dated 12.11.2002 to the petitioners. An Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Manager of the Tea Estate on 17.12.2002 and a domestic enquiry was held. 4. In pursuance to the domestic enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 26.03.2003 wherein, he came to a finding that the workmen were guilty of the charges framed against them. Subsequently, the Manager issued a show cause notice, dated 30.07.2003 to the workmen along with the enquiry report, asking them to submit their explanation to the same. They submitted their reply to the show cause notice on 14.08.2003. Thereafter, the Manager of the Tea Estate issued the impugned orders dated 17.08.2006, terminating the 9 workmen from the employment of the Konduli Tea Estate. On the basis of a complaint submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1, vide Notification dated 18.02.2008 referred the matter to the Labour Court, Guwahati and the same was registered as Reference Case No. 4/2008. 5. The respondent No. 2 submitted their written statement before the learned Labour Court. Thereafter, a preliminary issue was framed as to whether the domestic enquiry made against the concerned workmen by the Manager was a fair enquiry. 5. The respondent No. 2 submitted their written statement before the learned Labour Court. Thereafter, a preliminary issue was framed as to whether the domestic enquiry made against the concerned workmen by the Manager was a fair enquiry. Due to the fact that the petitioner did appear before the learned Labour Court, after framing of the preliminary issue, the learned Labour Court passed an order for proceeding ex-parte against the writ petitioner. Thereafter, on the basis of an application submitted by the writ petitioner, the ex-parte order passed by the learned Labour Court was set aside on 04.03.2009. The writ petitioner again did appear before the learned Labour Court w.e.f 15.05.2000 and consequently, the learned Labour Court issued order dated 02.07.2010, directing proceedings to be held ex-parte against the writ petitioner. After taking the evidence of the respondent No. 2, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned Award dated 07.08.2010, upholding the decision taken by the Manager in pursuance to the domestic enquiry. 6. The petitioner's counsel submits that the Award dated 07.08.2010, passed by the learned Labour Court should be set aside on the ground that the workmen have been acquitted by a Criminal Court in respect of the Criminal case filed against them. The second ground of challenge to the Award dated 07.08.2010 is that the Manager of the Tea Estate had issued the charge-sheet, given evidence with respect to the charges, in which he was involved and had subsequently, accepted the enquiry report made by the Enquiry Officer and issued the impugned dismissed order. He submits that the actions of the Manager vitiated the entire domestic enquiry proceedings as the same Manager has acted as a witness and judge in the case. He submits that the Manager cannot issue charge-sheet, give evidence in which the charge involves the Manager and thereafter, accept the enquiry report as the same would be in contravention of the Judgment of this Court in Kulendra Lahkar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam & Another, reported in 2004 Supple GLT 387. 7. Mr. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that there is no bar for a domestic enquiry to come to a different finding than the finding made in a Criminal proceeding. 7. Mr. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that there is no bar for a domestic enquiry to come to a different finding than the finding made in a Criminal proceeding. With respect to the second ground taken by the petitioner's counsel, he submits that the Manager, who had issued the charge-sheet and given evidence during the domestic enquiry was one Mr. A.V. Chittooran. Thereafter, the Manager of the Tea Estate was changed and the new Manager, namely Mr. Naveen Moktan took charge on 15.04.2003. He submits that the enquiry report was accepted by the new Manager, Mr. Naveen Moktan and the impugned order of dismissal from service was issued by the new Manager Mr. Naveen Moktan. He thus submits that the judgment of this Court in Kulendra Lahkar (Supra) would be applicable to the facts of this case. He further submits that the Manager of a Tea Estate is a competent authority and accordingly, there is no infirmity with the decision taken by the Manager in the domestic enquiry, in dismissing the workmen from service. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. The petitioner has challenged the Award dated 07.08.2010, passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference Case No. 4/2008 only on 2 grounds i.e :- (1) the acquittal of the workmen in the criminal proceeding would have a bearing in the domestic enquiry. (2) the issuance of the charge-sheet and giving of evidence by the Manager and the acceptance of the enquiry report and issuance of impugned order of dismissal from service by the same Manager, vitiates the entire domestic enquiry as the Manager would be biased. 10. In the case of Sahar Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P & Others, reported in 2011 (9) SCC 94 , the Apex Court has held that acquittal in the criminal case shall have no bearing or relevance to the facts of the departmental proceedings as the standard proof in both the cases are totally different. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas in a departmental proceeding, the proof required is only to the extent of preponderance of probability. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas in a departmental proceeding, the proof required is only to the extent of preponderance of probability. Thus, this court holds that the acquittal of the workmen in the criminal proceedings cannot have a bearing on the proceedings of a domestic inquiry, especially when there is no challenge to the domestic inquiry proceedings on merit. 11. I also find that the petitioner had never raised the second ground/issue before the learned Labour Court. 12. The 7 charges that were framed against the workmen are as follows:- "1. That on 6.9.2002, Friday at about 7:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. at the garden main hospital premises you along with others illegally confined the Manager Mr. A.V. Chittooran, the Medical Officer Dr. P.K. Adhikari and his family members, the Asst. Manager Mr. M. Goswami, the Welfare officer Mr. R. Bhuyan and the hospital staff in the Medical Officer's Bungalow and threatened the Management with dire consequences if your unreasonable demands were acceded to. 2. That, you are also alleged to have hurled extremely filthy abuses at the Management and physically assaulted Mr. A.V. Chittooran, Manager, Mr. P.K. Adhikari, Medical Officer, Mr. M. Goswami, Asst. Manager, Mr. R. Bhuyan, Labour Welfare Officer and M/s. Raju Rowtia, Jems Pradhan, Durgamoni Mahtwa all hospital staff. 3. That, you have also allegedly incited your fellow workmen in indulge in violence and riotous conduct directed on the Management and property of the Company. 4. That, you were involved in pelting stones and hurled earthen flower pot on Management Staff and police personnel on duty, building of the establishment, causing serious injuries to Management Staff and police officials apart from damage and destruction of Company's property. 5. That, you have also alleged to have carried sticks and iron rods with which you physically assaulted Mr. A.V. Chittooran, Manager, Dr. P.K. Adhikari, Medical Officer, Mr. M. Goswami, Asst. Manager, causing serious injury on their person. 6. That, you have used your chappals to assault Mr. A.V. Chittooran, Manager & Dr. P.K. Adhikari, Medical Officer. 7. That, you willfully disregarded the counsel of the Management Staff to refrain from indulging in violence and assaulting your superiors physically". 13. P.K. Adhikari, Medical Officer, Mr. M. Goswami, Asst. Manager, causing serious injury on their person. 6. That, you have used your chappals to assault Mr. A.V. Chittooran, Manager & Dr. P.K. Adhikari, Medical Officer. 7. That, you willfully disregarded the counsel of the Management Staff to refrain from indulging in violence and assaulting your superiors physically". 13. The respondent No. 2 in Reference Case No. 04/2008 has also taken the preliminary stand that as the domestic enquiry was held by the Respondent Management, the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue should be taken up first and if the preliminary issue is held against the management, opportunity to be given to the management to adduce evidence to justify the dismissal of the 9 nos. of workmen in question was prayed for. 14. In the case of Kulendra Lahkar (Supra), this Court had to decide an issue with regard to whether the Business Manager, who had examined himself in the domestic enquiry and had tendered evidence, touching upon the charges framed against the workmen, could have decided the correctness of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, imposed the punishment. This Court had held that the Business Manager ought to have delegated the function of the acceptance of the Enquiry Officer's report to some other authority and adopted the course of action of accepting the enquiry report and imposing the penalty, as the same was contrary to all established principles of natural justice, fairness and reasonableness. 15. In the present case, the earlier Manager had been examined in the domestic enquiry as a witness and his evidence had touched upon charges Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6, which involved him. The correctness of the enquiry report has been decided by a new Manager and the imposition of the penalty has been made by the new Manager. As per the Standing Orders for Tea Estates in Assam, as produced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the Manager of a Tea Estate is the competent authority, who can terminate the employment of a workman. The Standing Orders for Tea Estates in Assam also provides that riotous conduct or inciting others to disturbance or violence constitutes gross misconduct. The Standing Orders for Tea Estates in Assam also provides that riotous conduct or inciting others to disturbance or violence constitutes gross misconduct. Thus, though the Manager of a Tea Estate is a competent authority to impose the penalty of termination of a workmen, the issue in the present case is as to whether there was any bias on the part of the new Manager, Sh. Naveen Moktan, in accepting the Domestic Enquiry Report and imposing punishment, as the evidence in respect of the charges made against the workmen involved the earlier Manager Sh. A.V. Chittooran. Thus, the further question before this Court is whether the imposition of the penalty by the new Manager would amount to a person being a judge of his own case/cause and whether there was a possibility of bias in the acceptance of the enquiry report and imposition of penalty by the new Manager. In Kulendra Lahkar (Supra), the Business Manager had tendered evidence against the workmen and had thereafter accepted the enquiry report and imposed the punishment. The facts of the above case are similar with the facts of the present case. The reliance placed by the petitioner's counsel with the law laid down by this Court in Kulendra Lahkar (Supra) cannot be applied in the present case, as the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and what logically follows from it. In the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. N.R. Vairamani & Anr, reported in 2004 (8) SCC 579 , the Apex Court has held at para 9 & 11 as follows: "9. Courts should place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's Theorem nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are to be construed as statutes. 11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are to be construed as statutes. 11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is proper." In the case of Saran Motors(P) Ltd. v. Vishwanath, reported in (1964) 2 LLJ 139 (SC), the Apex Court held that " It is well known that enquiries of this type are generally conducted by the officers of the employer and in the absence of any special individual bias attributable to a particular officer, it has never been held that the enquiry is bad just because it is conducted by an officer of the employer." In the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Sanjay Sethi & Anr, reported in 2013 (16) SCC 116, the Apex Court has held that the fundamental principles of natural justice are applicable to administrative enquiries and administrative proceedings. It is also a fundamental facet of the principles of natural justice that in the case of quasi-judicial proceedings, the authority empowered to decide a dispute between the contesting parties has to be free from bias. "Free from bias" means there should be absence of conscious or unconscious prejudice to either of the parties. What has to be seen in a case where there is allegation of bias in respect of a member of an administrative board or body is whether there is a reasonable ground for pleading that he was likely to have been biased. In other words, where there is a substantial possibility of bias animating the mind of the member against the aggrieved party. The reasonable apprehension must be based on cogent materials. Needless to say, personal bias is one of the limbs, namely, pecuniary bias, personal bias and official bias. The question of bias would arise depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be an imaginary one or come into existence by an individual' s perception based on a figment of imagination. 16. In the present case, the petitioner's counsel has made a sweeping statement that the Manager of the Tea Estate had issued the charge sheet to all the workmen and that he had taken part in the domestic enquiry as a witness. 16. In the present case, the petitioner's counsel has made a sweeping statement that the Manager of the Tea Estate had issued the charge sheet to all the workmen and that he had taken part in the domestic enquiry as a witness. Further, the same Manager had accepted the enquiry report and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was aware that the acceptance of the enquiry report and imposition of penalty had been made by the new Manager Sh. Naveen Moktan and by the earlier Manager, Sh. A.V. Chittooran. The petitioner has attributed any specific instance of bias towards the new Manager Sh. Naveen Moktan at any time. No allegation has been made by the petitioner against Sh. Naveen Moktan in this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the acceptance of the enquiry report by the new Manager suffered from some procedural defect or lack of evidence. The petitioner's case is only to the effect that the Manager, who had taken part in the proceedings, by being a witness, could have subsequently accepted the enquiry report and imposed the penalty of dismissal. The allegation of bias made by the petitioner have to be against a particular individual and against a post. It is the case of the petitioner that he was given the opportunity of being heard or that the rules of natural justice had been violated. 17. In Para-11 to 13 of the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2006 (5) SCC 201 , the Apex Court has held as follows:- "11. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court this Court has held that merely because the enquiry officer is an employee of the management it cannot lead to the assumption that he is bound to decide the case in favour of the management. 12. In Saran Motors (P) Ltd. Vishwanath this Court held as follows: "it is well known that enquiries of this type are generally conducted by the officers of the employer and in the absence of any special individual bias attributable to a particular officer, it has never been held that the enquiry is bad just because it is conducted by an officer of the employer." 13. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court that enquiry was vitiated because it was conducted by an officer of the management cannot be sustained." 18. In the present case, the petitioner was of the view that the same Manager, who had taken part in the domestic proceeding, had also imposed the penalty of dismissal. In fact, the petitioner in para 26 (e) of the writ petition has stated as follows: "It is clear from the above facts that the Manager who had issued the charge sheet and had also deposed as Management witness in course of the enquiry proceeding, findings of the enquiry officer, appointed to enquire into the charges were concurred with by the same Manager and also had imposed the punishment of dismissal from service." Accordingly, in the eyes of the petitioner, there was an apprehension of biasness on the part of the Manager. However, in view of the actual fact situation, which is to the effect that the acceptance of the enquiry report and imposition of penalty, was done by the new Manager, which has been challenged by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the allegation of bias made by the petitioner against the earlier Manager, is enough to prove that there was unfairness in the acceptance of the enquiry report or the imposition of the penalty of dismissal by the new Manager. 19. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that no case of bias has been made out against the new Manager Sh. Naveen Moktan, who had accepted the enquiry report and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. Accordingly, this Court does not find any reason to exercise its writ jurisdiction for setting aside the ex-parte Award No. 7/08/2010, passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference Case No. 4/2008.