Mr. M.N. Bhandari, J.

1. By this writ petition, A challenge is made to the order dated 14.5.2015, passed by the labour Court, Jaipur. The application submitted by the respondent-workman for Grant of subsistence allowance, on Holding Domestic Enquiry to be unfair, has been allowed. The Petitioner Corporation has been directed to pay subsistence allowance to the respondent-workman since 31.1.2015, I.E., The date of filing of application.

2. It is coming out from the writ petition that after punishment of dismissal from service, a dispute was raised by the workman and had been referred to the Labour Court for its adjudication vide order dated 12th April, 2007. The respondent-workman submitted statement of claim, which was duly replied by the petitioner Corporation. The Labour Court thereupon heard the case and found domestic enquiry to be unfair and defective vide order dated 7th January, 2015. The respondent-workman had preferred an application on 13th January, 2015 to seek interim relief. It was for subsistence allowance from the date of termination, i.e., 3rd February, 2005. It was as per para 35 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers Workshop and Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (for short "certified standing orders"). The Labour Court allowed the application thus challenge to the said orders has been made.

3. Learned counsel for both the parties contested the case and have referred various judgments to support their case. The issue for my consideration is as to whether the interim relief granted by the Labour Court can be said to be incidental to the dispute referred to it and a direction for subsistence allowance can be given, as is provided to an employee under suspension.

4. Para 35 of the certified standing order applies to the suspended employees and not to a person out of service on dismissal from service. If the interim relief in the shape of subsistence allowance is allowed after holding enquiry to be unfair and, thereupon, in the enquiry held before the Labour Court, charge is found proved by the Labour Court and no interference in the order of punishment is made, the order of dismissal from service becomes operative from the date, it was issued. In that case, payment during the intervening period would become improper.

5. To consider the issue aforesaid, I have gone through the terms of the reference before the Labour Court for its answer. It is pertaining to the order of punishment dated 3rd February, 2005, whereby, the respondent-workman was dismissed from service after holding enquiry. On a dispute against the order of punishment, it was referred to the Labour Court. After exchange of pleadings, the case was heard on fairness of enquiry. The domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner Corporation was held to be unfair by the Labour Court. In view of the prayer of the petitioner Corporation, they were permitted to lead evidence to prove the charge before the Labour Court and at the same time, the respondent-workman to defend his case by leading evidence. An application was filed for grant of interim relief. It was allowed with a direction to pay subsistence allowance from the date of application. The order has been passed in reference to para of the certified standing orders without even considering as to what is provided therein.

6. The para 35 of the certified standing orders provides for payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, which is not the case to herein. The respondent-workman cannot be treated to be under suspension after the order of dismissal from service. The punishment is not nullified even after holding enquiry to be unfair. The stage of suspension comes prior to the order of punishment and not subsequent to it. Learned Labour Court has failed to consider this aspect while relying on para 35 of the certified standing order for grant of subsistence allowance from the date of application.

7. The question further comes as to whether grant of interim relief, on holdin