JUDGMENT:-Special leave granted.

2. The appellant is an employee in the Balihari Colliery of the Respondent No. 1 and in 1986 was working as an electrical helper. On the allegation that he physically assaulted a supervising officer by name S. K. Mandal, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings as also a criminal prosecution. Since the disciplinary proceeding as also the criminal trial were taken simultaneously, the appellant filed a civil action in the court of Munsif at Dhanbad asking for injunction against the disciplinary action pending criminal trial. On 6-12-1986, the Munsif made an order staying further proceedings in the disciplinary action till disposal of the criminal case. The appeal of the Respondent No. 1 against the order of learned Munsif was dismissed on 31st March, 1987, by the appellate court. Thereupon the Respondent No. 1 moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court by its order dated 7-7-1987 held :

"First information report was lodged against the opposite party (appellant) and the same was pending before the competent court. Meanwhile the petitioners (respondents) started departmental proceeding against the opposite party. The opposite party filed a suit before the trial court for declaration that appointment of the Enquiry Officer was illegal and for restraining the petitioners permanently from continuing with the departmental proceeding during the pendency of the criminal case. That was allowed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower court. There is no bar for an employer to proceed with the departmental proceeding with regard to the same allegation for which a criminal case is pending.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the courts below were wrong in granting injunction in favour of the opposite party.

In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned is set aside."

2A. According to Mr. Jain for the appellant, the legal position settled by this Court supported the stand that the disciplinary action had to be stayed till the criminal case was over. He relied upon the decisions in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan, (1960) 3 SCR 227: and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1964) 7 SCR 555 He also referred in the course of his submission to the decisions of different High Courts in support of his propositions. Two cases out of the several ones of the High Courts he relied upon are Khusi Ram v. Union of India. 1974 Lab IC 553 (Him Pra) and Project Manager, ONGC v. Lal Chand Vajir Chand Chandna, (1982) 1 Serv LR654: (1981 Lab ICNOC 160) (Guj). Pathak C.J., as he then was in the Himachal case indicated that fair play required the postponing of the criminal trial and Thakkar J. as our learned brother then was in the Gujarat case had also taken a similar view.

3. We would like to point out that there are also authorities in support of the position that there is nothing wrong in parallel proceedings being taken - one by way of the disciplinary proceeding and the other in the criminal court. Reference may be made to decision of this Court in Jang Bahadur Singh v. Baij Nath Tiwari, (1969) 1 SCR 134 and some decisions of High Courts such as Rama P.C. v. Superintendent of Police, Kolar, AIR 1967 Mys 220, Ali Mohd. v. Chairman, T. A. & C., Udhampur, (1981) 2 Serv. LR 225 (J & K), Moulindra Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, 1973 Lab IC 1564 (Gauhati) and Shaikh Kasim v. Superintendent of Post Office, Chingleput, AIR 1955 Mad 502.

4. Mr. Jain contended that we should settle the law in a straight jacket formula as judicial opinion appeared to be conflicting. We do not propose to hazard such a step as that would create greater hardship and individual situations may not be available to be met and thereby injustice is likely to ensue.

5. In the Delhi Cloth & General Mills case (AIR 1960 SC 806) (supra), it was pointed out by this Court (at p. 807) :-

" It is true that very often employers stay enquiries pending the decision of the criminal trial courts and that is