JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Heard Mr. V. P. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. D. Raut, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 and 3, who are formal parties, are represented by Mr. A. M. Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned authority under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the learned Judge, First Labour Court, Nagpur dated 12.12.2005 in BIR Application No. 136/1997 filed on behalf of the petitioner, whereby the learned Judge of the First Labour Court dismissed the application, together with the judgment and order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, the Appellate Authority, dated 19.07.2014 in BIR Appeal No. 02/2006, whereby the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 12.12.2005. 4. The petitioner was working as a Winder with respondent no.1 – company. He was served with a show cause notice dated 02.05.1995 by the General Manager (Tech.) of respondent no.1-Company. As per the show cause notice, on 24.04.1995, in the second shift, senior officer one Shri R.K. Jawade, Spinning Master when gave a visit at 11.35 in the night at Winding Department of respondent no.1-Company, that time it was found by him that the petitioner was not on the machine and he was combing his hairs. Upon that, said officer Shri Jawade asked the petitioner that his shift is yet to over and therefore, he should immediately resume his work. The show cause notice shows that upon that, the petitioner abused Shri Jawade in very abusive language. Therefore, Shri Jawade asked one Shri Mandwekar to call the Labour Officer and the Watchman. Upon that, the petitioner got flared up and he lifted one big iron container and made an assault with the same upon Shri Jawade resulting into Shri Jawade suffering injuries. The petitioner was, therefore, served with a notice for the following misconducts:- “1. M.S.O. 24(a) : Willful insubordination or disobedience whether or not in combination with another of any lawful and reasonable orders of a superior ; 2. M.S.O. 24(c) : Willful slowing down in performance or work or abetment or instigation thereof ; 3. The petitioner was, therefore, served with a notice for the following misconducts:- “1. M.S.O. 24(a) : Willful insubordination or disobedience whether or not in combination with another of any lawful and reasonable orders of a superior ; 2. M.S.O. 24(c) : Willful slowing down in performance or work or abetment or instigation thereof ; 3. M.S.O. 24(h) : Habitual breach of any standing order or any law applicable to the establishment or any rule made thereunder. 4. M.S.O. 24(L) : Drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behavior on the premises of establishment. 5. M.S.O. 24(k) : Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behavior on the premises of the establishment.” 5. The petitioner, therefore, was directed to file reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner thereafter vide his reply dated 11.05.1995 submitted his explanation. 6. Since, the explanation was not found to be satisfactory by the respondent, Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The Inquiry officer submitted his report, a copy of which was given to the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer found that the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved. Therefore, the respondent on 03.02.1996 gave show cause notice and sought his explanation. The said was replied, however, the management was not satisfied with the same and the respondent management since was agreeable to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, issued the order of termination on 12.06.1997 and terminated respondent no.1 from the said date. 7. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of termination. He, therefore, approached to the Labour Court, which is also an authority under sections 78, 79 read with Section 42-A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and challenged the order of termination. The application was registered as BIR Application No. 136/1997. The learned Judge of the Labour Court dismissed the complaint, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court. 8. Shri V. P. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Labour Court to show that the Labour Court vide order dated 13.03.2001 recorded a finding that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not fair and proper and was not as per the principles of natural justice. 8. Shri V. P. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Labour Court to show that the Labour Court vide order dated 13.03.2001 recorded a finding that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not fair and proper and was not as per the principles of natural justice. There is no dispute on the part of the petitioner that thereafter the learned Judge of the Labour Court granted permission to the respondent no.1 to prove the charges before the Labour Court and accordingly the management adduced evidence in that behalf. 9. It is a trait law that when the Labour Court is of the view that the enquiry conducted against a delinquent is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and/or the enquiry is not fair and proper, it is always open for the management to submit the case before the Labour Court and to prove the charges against the delinquent in the Court. Accordingly, when the permission is given to the management to prove the charges in the Court against the delinquent, the said evidence can very well be used against the delinquent to show that the delinquent has committed misconducts which are duly proved in the Court. 10. In the present case, the management has examined various witnesses including Shri Jawade, whose evidence is at Exh.76. On behalf of the petitioner, he entered into the witness box. Except him, he did not examine any other witness. 11. It was also one of the submissions before the Courts below and before this Court on the part of the petitioner that simultaneously the petitioner faced the criminal prosecution in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class for relevant sections in Regular Criminal Case No. 100/1995 and the learned Magistrate acquitted him. The law on this issue is well settled. The Hon’ble Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony (Capt.) .vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., reported in 1999 I CLR 1032 in paragraph 26 has ruled that the departmental proceeding and the proceeding in criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar and they are being conducted simultaneously though separately. Standard of proof for proving the guilt in a criminal trial is much higher than to prove the misconduct in a domestic enquiry. Standard of proof for proving the guilt in a criminal trial is much higher than to prove the misconduct in a domestic enquiry. In the criminal proceeding, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the domestic enquiry to prove the misconduct of a delinquent, the evidence is required to be tested on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, merely because the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, the same will not be helpful to him. 12. In this petition, it is an admitted position that at the relevant time, the petitioner as working as a Winder and on 27.04.1995, he was working in Winding Department of the respondent – Company and undisputedly, Shri Jawade was working as Spinning Master and he was on duty on 27.04.1995. It is also not in dispute that Shri Jawade took a round being a superior officer, at 11.30 in the night in Winding Department from Ring Frame department and at that time, he found that the petitioner was not discharging his duty on the machine, but he was combing his hairs and when Shri Jawade asked about the said and directed him to resume the duty, the petitioner got flared up and used choicest of the abuses. Not only that, he threw an iron container, though empty, on the person of Shri Jawade resulting into causing injury on his finger since he tried to save his head. The injury certificate of Shri Jawade was placed on record as it could be seen from the judgment of the trial Court, at Exh.64. 13. Mr. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out anything to show that evidence of Shri Jawade, who was injured, could not be believed. The learned Judge of the Labour Court found the evidence of Shri Jawade trustworthy. His version that he was assaulted by the petitioner was also proved through his injury certificate (Exh.64). 14. The act on the part of the petitioner in leaving the machine abruptly, though he was supposed to work on the machine and combing hairs was a serious misconduct. Not only that, when he was asked by his superior to resume the duty, instead he used abusive words and assaulted on him, in view of this Court, is a grave misconduct. 15. Not only that, when he was asked by his superior to resume the duty, instead he used abusive words and assaulted on him, in view of this Court, is a grave misconduct. 15. In the Court itself, full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself to show that the action of termination of his services is mala fide, however, the learned Judge of the Labour Court found that the management has proved this charge and therefore, in my view rightly dismissed the proceedings filed on behalf of the petitioner. 16. The Appellate Court also, in my view, has rightly concurred with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. 17. This writ petition is against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. Before me, nothing could be pointed out to disbelieve the evidence of the superior officer Shri Jawade. Therefore, I am of the view that no exception can be taken to the well reasoned judgments delivered by both the Courts below. Resultantly, I pass the following order: ORDER. 1. The writ petition is dismissed. 2. Rule discharged. 3. No order as to costs.