1. Heard.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties for quite some time. Both have taken me through the petition paper book and the impugned orders. The judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Maharashtra State Roadways Transport Corporation Vs. Syed Saheblal Syed Nijam [2014 III CLR 547], is relied upon by the parties.

5. It is not in dispute that the complainant has been dismissed from the employment for a proved misconduct, by order dated 31.7.2013. She was working as an Arogya Sevika. She questioned her dismissal through Complaint (ULP) No. 21 of 2013 filed before the Labour Court at Jalgaon, under Section 28(1) along with an application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.

6. By the order dated 2.1.2014, passed by the learned Labour Court, Jalgaon, below the application for interim relief Exhibit U/2, the order of termination dated 31.7.2013 was stayed and by way of an interim measure, the petitioner - employer was directed to reinstate the respondent - employee in service, temporarily, till the final disposal of the main complaint.

7. The crystallized position of law needs to be adverted to in the above factual matrix. Granting interim relief in the nature of reinstating the complainant in service amounts to granting final relief at an interim stage. It is trite law that reinstatement by way of interim relief is not permissible as held in catena of decisions by the Apex Court.

8. The Apex Court in the case of Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2003) 4 SCC 104], has held as under:-

"34. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Case (supra) this Court examined the point as to whether a workman could be ordered to be reinstated as an interim measure pending final adjudication by the Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. In the said case the employer dismissed the workman for disobeying the orders of the managing authority. The workman filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 contesting his dismissal on various grounds, whereupon the Tribunal passed an order to the effect that as an interim measure the workman be permitted to work and if the management failed to take him back his full wages be paid from the date he reported for duty. The employer challenged the order of the Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed. On appeal by a certificate of the High Court it was held that the order of reinstatement could not be given as an interim relief because that would be giving the employee the very relief which he would get if order of dismissal is not found to be justified. Order passed by the Tribunal was held to be manifestly erroneous and set aside. It was observed:

"...We are of opinion that such an order cannot be passed in law as an interim relief, for that would amount to giving the respondent at the outset the relief to which he would be entitled only if the employer failed in the proceedings under Section 33-A. As was pointed out in Hotel Imperial's case (1959) IILLJ 544 SC, ordinarily, interim relief should not be the whole relief that the workmen would get if they succeeded finally. The order therefore of the Tribunal in this case allowing reinstatement as an interim relief or in lieu thereof payment of full wages is manifestly erroneous and must therefore be set aside..."

35. In U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & Ors. case (supra) it was held by this Court that it was desirable that an order of suspension passed by a competent authority should not be ordinarily interfered by an interlocutory order pending the proceeding. It was observed:

"...Whether the employees should or should not continue in their office during the period of inquiry is a matter to be assessed by the authority concerned and ordina