ORDER 1. The petitioner Brooke Bond India Limited Impugns in the present writ application orders dated 13.3.87 and 18.8.87 as passed by the learned Judge, 5th Industrial Tribunal. By order dared 13.3.87 the Tribunal, on an application for interim relief filed by the workman on 23.12.86 directed the Management of the Company to make payment of fifty percent or the salary of rupees two thousand per month in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Subsistence Allowance Act 1969 with effect from the date of filling of the application for interim relief till the disposal of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The workman concerned was directed to give a written undertaking supported by an affidavit stating therein that the amount to be received by him on account of Interim relief would be repaid to the company if the case is ultimately decided against him, within seven days from the date of the judgment and award. The company filed an application to review the said order and by an order dated 18.8.87 the Tribunal held that the petition for review filed by the company was not maintainable in law and accordingly it stood rejected If is the contention of the petitioner company that several creditors of the workman respondent no. 2 obtained decrees from the Court of Small Causes at Sealdah and other places and obtained orders of attachment in respect of the salary payable to the said workman respondent no 2 and in view of the said order of attachment passed against the workman concerned, there is no likelihood of the workman re-imbursing money despite the undertaking given by him. The hearing of the proceeding before the Tribunal was not taken up on some pretext or other and the matter was indefinitely delayed so that the company had to incur a recurring liability to go on paying fifty percent of the salary last drawn by the workman as interim relief. 2. Mr. Das, the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company drew my attention to the Industrial Disputes (West Bengal Second Amendment) Act 1980 whereby s. 15 of the industrial Disputes Act did undergo an amendment. 2. Mr. Das, the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner company drew my attention to the Industrial Disputes (West Bengal Second Amendment) Act 1980 whereby s. 15 of the industrial Disputes Act did undergo an amendment. He drew my attention to s.15(2)(b) of the said amended Act which stipulates that where an industrial dispute has been referred either to a Labour Court or to a Tribunal it shall upon hearing the parties to the dispute, determine, within a period of sixty days from the date of reference under sub s.(1) of s.10 or within such shorter period as may be specified. In the order of reference, the quantum of interim relief admissible, If any, provided that the quantum of interim relief relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment of termination of service of the workman shall be equivalent to subsistence allowance as may be admissible under the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act 1969. Mr. Das also drew my attention to the subsequent amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as a whole brought in by the Central Legislature where s.15 of the Principal Act for the words "as soon as it is practicable on the conclusion thereof" the words, "within the period specified In the order referring such industrial dispute or the further period extended under the second proviso to sub-s.(2A) of s.10", shall be substituted Mr. Das contended that in view of the amendment incorporated In the Central Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1982 there was an implied repeal to the West Bengal Amendment Act which incorporated the provisions as to interim relief inasmuch as the main object for which the Central Legislature brought in the amendment postulated the expeditious hearing of a pending proceeding before the Labour Court or the Tribunal as the case may be and if the entire proceeding is over within a stipulated time, there would be no necessity whatsoever of the legislature still making a provision for relief to the indigent workman by way of an interim relief being admissible to him I do not think that there is any substance in the contention raised by Mr. Das. The West Bengal Amendment did not stand amply repealed by virtue of the subsequent amendment engrafted in the Central Statute which provides for expeditious hearing of a pending proceeding before the Tribunal or the Labour Court. Das. The West Bengal Amendment did not stand amply repealed by virtue of the subsequent amendment engrafted in the Central Statute which provides for expeditious hearing of a pending proceeding before the Tribunal or the Labour Court. The intention of the legislature is never to denude a workman of an enabling provision which was so secured by the State Legislature by way of social justice. 3. As regards the orders impugned, they are dated 13.3.87 and 18.8.87. The petitioner has come after the expiry of an inordinately long time and even if the contention of the petitioner could have been entertained only for an academic discussion, it does not call for any interim order by way of an equitable relief to the petitioner. 4. The learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 cited before me a Division Bench Judgment of this Court to Ganges Printing Ink Factory Employees Industrial Corporation Society Ltd & Ors. v. Seventh Industrial Tribunal & ors reported In 1986 FLR 617. where a Division Bench of our' High Court passed a judgment on July 28, 1986 holding inter alia that s.15(2)(b) of the West Bengal Amendment was introduced by the legislature for protecting the interest of Indigent workmen when fighting a cause against the management where always the fight is between two unequals. In that case also the question arose whether the object of amending statute would at all be fulfiled or advanced by interpreting the clause in the manner suggested by the company, viz. once 60 days expires from the date of reference, the tribunal loses all Its jurisdiction to make any order of Interim relief As rightly pointed out by the Division Bench various circumstances may intervene rendering it not possible for the tribunal to abide by the time limit As aptly held by the Division Bench that the legislature was intending that the issue with regard to the interim relief should be adjudicated irrespective of and even before the cases of the parties touching the merit of the dispute go to the tribunal. In that context it held that it was not necessary for the tribunal to hold a preliminary adjudication with regard to the merit of the dispute and record a strong prima facie case in favour of the applicant workman before any Older for interim relief could be made. In that context it held that it was not necessary for the tribunal to hold a preliminary adjudication with regard to the merit of the dispute and record a strong prima facie case in favour of the applicant workman before any Older for interim relief could be made. It Is Indeed true that this particular decision, as pronounced by the Division Bench, did not consider the effect of the amendment in the Central legislation while the West Bengal amendment continued to have Its sway. There was nothing in the Central Legislature creating a bar to the exercise of special protection or benefit for the contesting workman and hence, I am unable to uphold the contention raised by Mr. Das in support of the petitioner. 5. I would however, direct the Tribunal to take up the hearing from the next date fixed and continue with the bearing from day to day till the adjudication stands concluded That would only be in keeping with the spirit of the legislation as engrafted by both the State as well as the Central legislatures. 6. In the result, this writ application is dismissed. However the Tribunal is directed to take up the hearing from the next date onwards continue with the hearing day to day till the adjudication stands concluded and pass an award or a judgment as expeditiously as possible deciding the reference in all finality. I, however, make it clear that in case the workman. respondent no.2, is unable to re-imburse the money as received by him pursuant to his undertaking and the affidavit, the company would be entitled to realise the said amount in case the award goes against the workman concerned, from his provident fund, gratuity and other dues which may be lying with the company The writ application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs Let this order be communicated to the Tribunal below Application dismissed; direction given.