ORDER : 1. In these petitions, petitioners have sought for quashing the award dated 21.6.2014 passed by the Labour Court in Reference No.22/2010. 2. Petitioners were workers with the respondent Management. They were chargesheeted on 25.1.2003 on the serious allegations leveled against each of the worker including manhandling of the co-worker and abusing lady employee. Domestic enquiry was held wherein the charges levelled against the petitioners were proved. Even the criminal proceedings were lodged against the petitioners, wherein petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have been convicted. Insofar as petitioner No.4 is concerned, he has been acquitted on 29.11.2005. In this background, petitioners raised an industrial dispute in Reference No.22/2010, which has been decided by the Labour Court on 21.6.2014 while holding that enquiry held by the Management is proper and in a fair manner. Therefore, no interference is called for in respect of award dated 21.6.2014, which is arising out of termination order dated 26.7.2003 read with 17.9.2003. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioner No.4 has been acquitted in criminal proceedings. Therefore, relook in respect of petitioner No.4 is required. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the termination order dated 26.7.2003 and 17.9.2003 and award passed by the Labour Court. It was also contended that there were serious allegations leveled against the petitioners, who were chargesheeted in a domestic enquiry. Charges leveled against the petitioners were proved. Hence, no interference is called for from the Labour Court. Mere acquittal of petitioner No.4 is not entitled for reconsideration. It was contended that parallel proceedings are independent, one is for misconduct and the other one is for offence. Hence, no interference is called for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Questions for consideration in the present petitions are whether is there any infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court or not? Further, insofar as petitioner No.4 is concerned, merely as he was acquitted in criminal proceedings, is he entitled for any relief sought in the present petition? 7. On perusal of the chargesheet, termination order and award, there is no infirmity in the domestic enquiry. Moreover, there are serious charges leveled against the petitioners relating to manhandling of the coemployees and abusing lady employee. In the absence of finding by the Labour Court that there is no fair and proper enquiry in domestic proceedings, Court cannot interfere. 7. On perusal of the chargesheet, termination order and award, there is no infirmity in the domestic enquiry. Moreover, there are serious charges leveled against the petitioners relating to manhandling of the coemployees and abusing lady employee. In the absence of finding by the Labour Court that there is no fair and proper enquiry in domestic proceedings, Court cannot interfere. Fourth petitioner’s acquittal will not enure any benefit to him, since parallel proceedings were lodged against all the four petitioners by the Management, wherein petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were held to be guilty. Petitioner No.4 has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings. Time and again, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that parallel proceedings are required to be examined independently for the reasons that in a domestic enquiry, conduct of the employee is required to be examined, whereas in the criminal proceedings with reference to offence whether employee is to be convicted or acquitted is to be examined. 8. In view of these facts and circumstances, petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the award dated 21.06.2014. Accordingly, writ petitions stand dismissed.