Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.

Matter comes up on an application (IA No. 17435/2017), with a prayer for vacation of the ex-parte interim order dated 14th December, 2015. However, since the factual matrix and legal issues raised in above-noted two writ applications are closely interlinked; the matters have been taken up for final adjudication together, at this stage, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the petitioner-Corporation) has instituted the instant writ applications assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the orders made by the Labour Court-I, Jaipur. Order dated 14th May, 2015, is with reference to grant of subsistence allowances as a measure of interim relief on application dated 28th April, 2015, instituted by the respondent-employee. In the connected writ application No. 10625/2015, the petitioner-Corporation has impeached the order dated 3rd December, 2014, whereby the domestic enquiry conducted, was declared to be unfair.

3. Shorn off unnecessary details, essential material facts are that the petitioner-Corporation conducted a domestic enquiry against the respondent-employee serving a charge-sheet on 21st November, 2006. On conclusion of the enquiry proceedings with finding of guilt on the charge of wilful absence from duty, inflicted penalty of dismissal from service on 24th February, 2007. The respondent-employee raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947), leading to a reference for adjudication under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Act of 1947. It is pleaded case of the petitioner-Corporation that the respondent-employee was proceeded with domestic enquiry, strictly adhering to the procedures prescribed under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Work Shop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (for short the Orders of 1965), for wilful absence from duty. The Labour Court vide impugned order dated 3rd December, 2014, held the enquiry unfair for violation of cardinal principles of natural justice for the respondent-employee was not served with any notice of the enquiry proceedings conducted against him. Further, the petitioner-Corporation moved an application seeking permission to lead evidence to prove the charges against the respondent-employee, which was granted by the Labour Court on 4th March, 2015. On an application instituted by the respondent-employee claiming subsistence allowances as an interim measure; was granted by the Labour Court vide impugned order dated 14th May, 2015, which is the subject matter of challenge in SBCWP No. 18059/2015.

4. The only argument that has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation is, that the order made by the Corporation as a consequence of domestic enquiry terminating the services of the respondent-employee is, perfectly legal and valid. The impugned order dated 14th May, 2015, is sought to be assailed relying upon the opinion of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Parivahan Marg, Jaipur v. Girvar Singh: 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) 687.

5. Mr. O.P. Sheoran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation, while assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 14th May, 2015, granting the application of the respondent-employee for subsistence allowances as an interim measure, asserted that in the case of Girvar Singh (supra), on a consideration of several opinions including law declared by the Supreme Court, this Court held that claim for subsistence allowances during suspension, as an interim relief, against the dismissed workman, is not admissible.

6. According to learned counsel, the impugned order made by the Labour Court, holding the domestic enquiry as unfair, under challenge in the connected writ application No. 10625/2015; is illegal and arbitrary for proper procedure, as contemplated under the Orders of 1965, was strictly