1. Since the common judgment of the Industrial Court dated 7th November, 2017 partly allowing the applications moved by the employees seeking interim relief by way of reinstatement is under challenge in all these Writ Petitions, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. Rule. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the employees in question are employed with M/s. Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Various industrial disputes with regard to their service conditions were pending with the Industrial Court. During pendency of those proceedings, on 13th and 14th November, 2013, certain incidents took place allegedly involving certain employees which compelled the employer to issue show cause to the said employees as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. On the ground that the concerned employees were guilty of gross misconduct, orders of dismissal dated 21st November, 2013 came to be issued. As this dismissal, according to the employees, was during pendency of the Reference proceedings, it was necessary for the employer to have obtained necessary permission of the Industrial Tribunal where the proceedings were pending. Accordingly, the employer filed an application under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, “the Act of 1947”] on 21st November, 2013 seeking approval to the order of dismissal. A reply was filed on behalf of the concerned employees opposing the prayer as made. Those proceedings under Section 33 of the Act of 1947 came to be decided on 16th August, 2016 and the said adjudication was the subject-matter of challenge in various Writ Petitions before this Court. This Court by order dated 10th January, 2017 had remanded the proceedings and directed the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the same afresh along with other pending reference proceedings. Thereafter, the employer examined about 118 witnesses to establish its case. During pendency of those proceedings, the employer moved an application seeking withdrawal of the application seeking approval to dismiss the employees. According to the employer, the provisions of Section 33 of the Act of 1947 were not applicable and hence the prayer for withdrawing the said applications came to be made. The Industrial Tribunal allowed those applications subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to each employee.

4. Thereafter, the employees filed Complaint under Section 33A of the Act of 1947 stating therein that the order of dismissal dated 21st November, 2013 having been passed without seeking necessary approval of the Industrial Tribunal, there was breach of provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act of 1947. Along with those Complaints, applications for grant of interim relief came to be filed. It was prayed that by way of interim relief, the employees be reinstated on their former posts or in the alternate the employer be directed to pay full back wages to them. These applications were opposed by the employer and by the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Industrial Tribunal directed the employer to permit the employees to join duties on their former posts or to pay seventy-five per cent wages which the said employees were receiving at the time of their dismissal.

5. This order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is under challenge by the employer on the premise that the impugned order is contrary to law and has been passed in exercise of jurisdiction not vested with the Industrial Tribunal. The concerned employees have also challenged the same order with a prayer that the employees were entitled for full wages instead of seventy-five per cent wages as granted.

6. On behalf of the employer, Shri M. G. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Industrial Court committed an error of jurisdiction by granting interim relief in proceedings under Section 33A of the Act of 1947. It was submitted that the complaints as filed had to be tried as Reference proceedings