Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioner uranium Corporation of India Limited has challenged the Award dated 18/04/1994 passed by Presiding Officer, Central government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, dhanbad in Reference Case No. 50 of 1988, whereby, after recording a finding that the management was unable to prove misconduct, set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner-management to reinstate the workman without any back wages. It appears that the Government of India, Ministry of labour in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 (l) (d) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:"whether the action of the management of uranium Corporation of India Limited, jaduguda Mines, district Singhbhum, Bihar in dismissing Shri Jogeshwar Prasad, helper-A from service w. e. f. 26/04/1982 is justified? If not, what relief the said workman entitled to?" ( 2 ) THE facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. ( 3 ) THE concerned workman was in service of the petitioner. In 1979 he was charge-sheeted and departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The charges against the workman was that on 21/03/1979 at about 10. 40a. m. when Dr. Rakshit, Chief Medical Officer was examining a patient at the hospital at room No. 13, the respondent No. 2 along with Mithulal gape and other workman forcibly entered into the room in riotous manner. The concerned workman and other assaulted Dr. A. K. Rakshit and dragged him outside the room. They abused Dr. Rakshit with filthy languages. Dr. Rakshit ran towards Female Ward for safety and the concerned workman chased him and assaulted him. Dr. Rakshit fell down on the ground and then the concerned workman attempted to hit with iron rod. The concerned workman also threw stones aiming at Dr. Rakshit, as a result of which one glass pane of cabin No. 3 was badly smashed. In this way the concerned workman and others committed misconduct as per the Standing Order 42 (i), 42 (p), 42 (bb ). ( 4 ) THE concerned workman denied the charges made against him and the management being dissatisfied with the reply started domestic inquiry. In the domestic inquiry the concerned workman was found guilty and accordingly on the basis of inquiry report petitioner was dismissed from the service. ( 4 ) THE concerned workman denied the charges made against him and the management being dissatisfied with the reply started domestic inquiry. In the domestic inquiry the concerned workman was found guilty and accordingly on the basis of inquiry report petitioner was dismissed from the service. Consequently, an industrial dispute was raised and the dispute quoted hereinabove was referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Dr. Rakshit. The Tribunal took the view that in order to constitute assault it is not necessary that actual injury should be found. It is enough if a show of force is used. However, the tribunal took into consideration that simultaneously in respect of the same charges a criminal case was also instituted against the concerned workman but despite pendency of the criminal case departmental proceeding was not stayed rather pending criminal case domestic inquiry was concluded and order of dismissal was passed. Ultimately criminal case ended in acquittal as the charges against the workman were not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts the Tribunal held that the punishment by way of dismissal will not meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal therefore set aside the order of dismissal passed by the management and held that the concerned workman was liable to be punished by withholding two increments. Accordingly management was directed to reinstate the concerned workman to his original post but without any back wages. The said award is under challenge. ( 5 ) MR. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that when the charges against the petitioner were proved and he was found guilty of misconduct then the Tribunal exceeded its exercise in setting aside the punishment of dismissal and substituting it by withholding increments. Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decision of the Patna high Court in the case of Subhas Chandra yadav v. State of Bihar and others 2001 (2)pljr 456 . ( 6 ) MR. Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decision of the Patna high Court in the case of Subhas Chandra yadav v. State of Bihar and others 2001 (2)pljr 456 . ( 6 ) MR. V. P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the concerned workman on the other hand submitted that admittedly both the domestic inquiry and the criminal case were started simultaneously in respect of the same charges and on the same set of facts but the domestic inquiry was not stayed by the management. The concerned workman was eventually acquitted by the Criminal Court of the same charges. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the tribunal has rightly awarded punishment of withholding two increments and reinstatement without back wages. Learned counsel also cited some instance where of another workman namely, Ramdeo Mishra who was proceeded departmentally and he was dismissed from service in the domestic inquiry. Subsequently he was acquitted in the criminal case. Taking into consideration the same the Industrial tribunal after setting aside the punishment of dismissal awarded punishment withholding two increments and directed the management to reinstate him in service. The said award was also challenged by the present petitioner before this Court in CWJC No. 2352 of 1998 (R ). This Court without interfering with the award of reinstatement passed by the tribunal disposed of the writ petition with certain modification. According to learned counsel therefore this writ application is also liable to be dismissed and the award need not be interfered with. ( 7 ) BEFORE analyzing the grounds set-forth by the management, I would like to discuss the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1416 : 1999 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ-1094. The Apex Court while considering the fact of simultaneously continuation of departmental proceeding with criminal proceeding, laid down certain guidelines by coming to the following conclusion:"the conclusion which are deducible from various decision of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceeding and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case, is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against tie employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii)above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest. " ( 8 ) SIMILAR view was taken by the Supreme court in the earlier decision in the case of Depot manager, A. P. S. R. T. Corporation v. Md. Yousuf Miya AIR 1997 SC 2232 : 1997 (2) SCC 699 : 1997-II-LLJ- 902. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the management in case of such charges against the workman which is serious in nature, it must be ended in dismissal of the workman from the service. Despite the admitted fact the management initiated domestic inquiry but continued without staying their hand till disposal of the criminal case. In the criminal case the workman was acquitted by the criminal Court holding that the charges as against him were not proved. Despite the admitted fact the management initiated domestic inquiry but continued without staying their hand till disposal of the criminal case. In the criminal case the workman was acquitted by the criminal Court holding that the charges as against him were not proved. ( 10 ) IN the case of Subhas Chandra Yadav v. State of Bihar and others (supra), on which the petitioner put heavy reliance, it appears that the departmental proceeding was stayed and it was only after the criminal case ended in acquittal, the management decided to proceed with the departmental inquiry afresh. In the said departmental proceeding, the charges levelled against the petitioner were said to have been proved and then order of punishment was passed. But in the instant case the management without waiting for the result of the criminal case proceeded with the departmental inquiry and held the workman guilty of the charges. In my opinion therefore, applying the ratio decided by the apex Court and also having regard to the judgment passed in C. W. J. C. No. 2352/98 (R) as against another workman in respect of the same incidence, there is no reason to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal. The punishment awarded by the tribunal withholding of increments and debarring the workman from back wages will meet the ends of justice. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any strong ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. This writ application is therefore dismissed. --- *** --- .