JUDGMENT : V.S. Kotwal, J.—This bunch of four petitions can be conveniently disposed of by common order as it involves an identical question and practically identical submission are canvassed. For obvious reasons the impugned order is unsustainable and since the remand is inevitable a detailed discussion is un-necessary. 2. A complaint came to be filed by the petitioners in all the petitions making certain grievances that there has been a breach of agreement by the respondent-employer which amounts to an Unfair Labour Practice within the meaning of certain items of schedule (4) and especially item No. 9 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act the details of which need not be stated. This came to be filed in the Industrial Court. All these complaints came to be resisted on behalf of the first respondent-employer on all the counts. 3. The sum and substance of the grievance is that in view of a certain settlement arrived at between the parties somewhere in the year 1983 it was stipulated and agreed that these petitioners-workers shall be paid subsistence allowance for the interim period till the dispute is finally adjudicated upon. In view of this settlement as per the petitioners' case they were being paid the subsistence allowance as agreed upon upto October 1984. The real dispute, however, commenced thereafter inasmuch as the said allowance for the months of November and December 1984 and January 1985 was withheld. The said allowance was required to be paid on or before 7th day of the next succeeding month. On account of this with holding which according to the workers was unjustified that four complaints came to be filed under the said Act in the Industrial Court on 25th of March, 1985. 4. It is in these complaints that separate interim applications were filed by these workers claiming that during the pendency of the complaints the interim relief in the shape of the amount equivalent to the subsistence allowance be paid to them. Now it is an admitted position that it is this interim application only that was being agitated at that time, meaning thereby that the main complaints were kept at the background and were not to be decided. No doubt there has been opposition vis-a-vis the interim application also on behalf of the respondent-employer. Now it is an admitted position that it is this interim application only that was being agitated at that time, meaning thereby that the main complaints were kept at the background and were not to be decided. No doubt there has been opposition vis-a-vis the interim application also on behalf of the respondent-employer. The record reveals that some affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondent-employer wherein significantly they took certain defences which were relevant for the purpose of deciding the main complaints. Two out of such defences were that the complaints were barred by limitation and secondly the complaints were not maintainable at all. 5. The record further reveals that the interim applications came to be heard though one cannot suppress the element of surprise when it is found that though it was specific that the interim application was being heard in each of the proceedings, still the learned Member of the Tribunal took upon herself an onerous responsibility which was thoroughly unjustified to decide the original complaint itself. Inter alia she held that the complaint itself was barred by limitation and it was also not maintainable. For that purpose apparently she relied on the recitals in the affidavits filed on behalf of the employer which affidavits made a reference to certain notices issued to the Union the effect of which is to revoke and cancel the previous agreement and computing the period on the basis of that notice so that the notices would become final after 60 days that the learned Member felt that the complaint was beyond time. As observed at the threshold the learned Member of the Tribunal was obliged to address herself only to the interim application whereas all these contentions related entirely to the main complaint. The further deficiency is that the learned Member of the Tribunal extracted this material only from the affidavit filed on behalf of the employer whereas there was no occasion or an opportunity for the petitioners to make good their contentions in the main complaint. In other words, before the petitioners were given any opportunity to substantiate their grievances in the complaint, the learned Member of the Tribunal practically short circuited the entire proceeding and disposed of the main complaint and that too on the basis of the affidavit filed on behalf of the employer. 6. In other words, before the petitioners were given any opportunity to substantiate their grievances in the complaint, the learned Member of the Tribunal practically short circuited the entire proceeding and disposed of the main complaint and that too on the basis of the affidavit filed on behalf of the employer. 6. For obvious reasons this order is unsustainable inasmuch as it not only tends to dispose of the interim application but in fact it has disposed of the main complaint at a stage which was obviously premature. The net result is that this order will have to be set aside. In that event the only question would be whether it would be necessary to give any directions in the interim application during the pendency of the complaint. Instead of prolonging the litigation and having an exercise made twice it would be better if the original complaints are directed to be disposed of expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of three months especially when a question of payment of subsistence allowance is involved. In my opinion, this direction would do justice between the parties. Consequently, it would not be proper to express any opinion on the merits of the matter. The further result is that since the order recorded by the learned Member of the Tribunal is being set aside the observation therein as also the finding arrived at on the merits of the complaints has been vacated. The learned Member of the Tribunal incharge shall apply her mind afresh to the merits of the matter vis-a-vis the merits of the complaints, without having reference whatsoever to the finding which she has arrived. It is also apparent that the respondents will have to be given an opportunity to file written statements. 7. Rule made absolute in all the petitions. 8. The impugned orders, dated September 9, 1985 recorded by the Industrial Tribunal in all the said four complaints which arc the subject-matter of these petitions are set aside. All the said complaints are revived on the file. The learned Member of the Tribunal incharge is directed to give an opportunity to the respondents to put in their written statements and that to proceed with the said complaints in accordance with law and decide the same on merits on all the issues. All the said complaints are revived on the file. The learned Member of the Tribunal incharge is directed to give an opportunity to the respondents to put in their written statements and that to proceed with the said complaints in accordance with law and decide the same on merits on all the issues. The learned Member of the Tribunal shall endeavour to decide and dispose of all the said complaints expeditiously and as far as possible and feasible under the circumstances within a period of three months. 9. There will, however, be no order as to costs.