JUDGMENT : PREM SHANKAR SAHAY, J. The petitioners have moved this Court against the order of the learned District Judge, Dhanbad, dated 19.2.1982 affirming the order of the Munsif, Dhanbad refusing to grant injunction in the suit. 2. In order to appreciate the points raised in this application, it is necessary to state some facts. The petitioners are the employee of M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, Opposite Party No.1. On 19.3.1981 these petitioners along with others had assaulted an Officer of Opposite Party No.1, for which a first information report was lodged on the same day which bas given rise to Marafari P.S. Case No. 122 (3) 81 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. On 25.3.1981 charges were framed against these petitioners and others, and domestic enquiry was started while the criminal Case was pending against them. Enquiring Officer was appointed and show cause was filed and it seems that the proceedings were taken up on a number of dates on 10.12.1981 a suit was filed by the petitioners for restraining the Officers of the Company, Opposite Party No.1 from holding that domestic enquiry. A prayer for issuance of adinterim injunction was also made. The learned Munsif, Dhanbad, on a consideration of the materials rejected the prayer for issuance of adinterim injunction by his order dated 11.1.1981. The petitioners thereafter preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed, as stated above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have preferred this revisions. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the enquiry pending against the petitioners should await the criminal trial otherwise they will be prejudiced seriously if they have to disclose their defence in course of the enquiry. Secondly it has been submitted that if no injunction is granted to the petitioners, the suit will become infructuous. The question whether the domestic enquiry should continue if a criminal case relating to the same offence is pending had been the subject matter of the controversy in various High Courts, and ultimately the matter had gone to the Supreme Court. Secondly it has been submitted that if no injunction is granted to the petitioners, the suit will become infructuous. The question whether the domestic enquiry should continue if a criminal case relating to the same offence is pending had been the subject matter of the controversy in various High Courts, and ultimately the matter had gone to the Supreme Court. In the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. V. Kaushal Bhan it was observed as follows :- “It is true that very often employers stay enquiries pending the decision of the crimi-trial courts and that far; but we cannot say that principles of natural justice require that an employer must wait for the decision at least of the criminal trial court before taking action against an employee. In Shri Bimal Kanta Mukherjee V. Messers. News men's Printing Works (1956 Lab AC 188), this was the view taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. We may, however, add that if the case is of a grave nature or involves question of fact or law, which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the trial court, so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced.” In the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. V. The Workmen it has been observed that it is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a change framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a criminal court, the employers should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case. It would be particularly appropriate to adopt such a course where the charge against the workman is of a grave character because in such a case it would be unfair to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he may take before the criminal court. In the case of Rama Bhadoor and another v. M/s. Tungabhadra Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd., and another it has been held that a temporary injunction in a pending suit against the departmental enquiry cannot be granted on the ground that the defence in criminal trial will have to be disclosed in a court of such enquiry and development of such a situation will jeopardise the defence of the person in course of the trial. In such a situation the employee cannot claim infringement of any legal right and principle of natural justice do not require that an employer should not be held against his employee a departmental enquiry in respect of very same charges which are pending trial in a criminal court till the termination of such trial. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of D.D. Sehgal V. Punjab National Bank, Parliament Street, where a similar matter came up for consideration. In that case, an employee of the Bank had defalcated certain amount for which a case under Sections 409, 420, 468, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered. On a consideration of the facts of that case it was held by His Lordship that complicated question of facts and law were involved and in that view of the matter the contention of the employee was accepted and the writ application was allowed. Thus from the aforesaid discussions it is clear that if the delinquent is involved in a case of grave nature which involves a question of fact and law then it is only proper for the employer to stay the further proceedings in enquiry. But in cases of simple nature the enquiry should continue. Reliance was placed on a number of decisions of Supreme Court and other High Courts and they are Moulindra Singh V. The Deputy Commissioner, Rama Bahadoor V. Tungabhadra Sugar Works, (Supra) and M. Muralidhara Rao V. The Post Master General Andhara Circle. Now coming to the facts of the instant case one of the allegations against the petitioners is that they had assaulted two higher officers of the Company, Opposite Party No.1, on 19.3.1981, for which a case under Sections 143, 341, 342, 353, 426, 324, 325 of the Indian Penal Code bas been registered. After going through the First information report which is on the record, in my opinion, the allegations are not of a grave nature and no question of law is involved. No doubt two senior officers of the company, Opposite Party No.1, were assaulted by these petitioners who are workmen of the Company. But in judging, the graveness of the offence the nature of allegation has to be taken into account and not the person or persons who are actually assaulted. No doubt two senior officers of the company, Opposite Party No.1, were assaulted by these petitioners who are workmen of the Company. But in judging, the graveness of the offence the nature of allegation has to be taken into account and not the person or persons who are actually assaulted. Therefore, the facts of the instant case is distinguishable from the facts of D.D. Sehgal's Case (Supra) which has been relied upon by the petitioners. Moreover, the charges were framed against the petitioners by the Enquiring officer on 23/25.3.1981 and the petitioners participated and took part in the enquiry on a number of dates which will be clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the management and thereafter the suit was filed on 10.12.1981. Learned Judge in his order has also held, while disposing of the appeal in paragraph 12 of his order that the balance of convenience appears to be in favour of the respondents. because departmental enquiry is already in progress and is likely to be completed very soon which should not be stayed unnecessarily involving so many expenses and other officers coming for that purpose and the officers have also to come after leaving their important works. Therefore, the fact remains that the enquiry has proceeded a long way and it will not be proper to stop the same for an indefinite period. Even if the charge sheet has been submitted in this case, the facts which is not known as yet and the trial will naturaly take some time and if the petitioners are convicted then also they will have to prefer an appeal or revision. In that view of the matter if the contention of the petitioners is accepted, then the enquiry will be further delayed. On the facts and circumstances of this case and after going through the decisions cited at the Bar. I am of the opinion that the departmental enquiry against the petitioners should continue and will not prejudice them in the criminal trial. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has next contended that both the courts below have concurrently held against the petitioners that no case for injunction is made out, therefore this Court should not interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has next contended that both the courts below have concurrently held against the petitioners that no case for injunction is made out, therefore this Court should not interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. In support of the contention reliance has been placed on a number of decision, namely, Maitnyee Banerjee V. Prabir Kumar Mukherjees, The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Balangar, Hyderabad V. Ajit Prasad, Delhi Municipality V. Suresh Chandra, Hansdeo Singh V. Ghura Singh. The proposition is well founded and has to be accepted. It has been held in those decisions that on a concurrent finding of facts, this Court should not interfere with the orders under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover from the orders passed by the two Courts below it is clear that both the courts have held against the petitioners on all points and in that view of the matter it will not be proper for this Court to reappraise the whole thing. Thus on a careful consideration of the contention raised in this case, it is clear that there is no merit in the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners 5. In the result this application is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.