( 1 ) THE issue as to whether the petitioner/management was justified in dismissing the second respondent from service is referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bangalore. During the pendency, workman sought for an interim relief under Section 10 (4) of the Industrial Disputes act to direct the Management to make payment of atleast 50% of the wages last drawn pending disposal of the dispute. The Additional Labour Court, as per the impugned order dated 9th May 1986 (Annexure-A), has granted relief, the validity of which is challenged in this petition. ( 2 ) MAIN ground on which dismissal order is challenged is non-compliance of principles of natural justice in a domestic enquiry. The plea of the workman was that the enquiry is being prolonged unnecessarily and has no means to survive. Accordingly, he sought for the grant of interim relief. Management resisted the relief on the ground that even before recording the finding on the preliminary issue viz. , whether the Management has complied with the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry or not, workman is not entitled to any interim relief, much less any power conferred on the Labour Court to grant such interim relief. The Additional Labour Court, relying on the decision in The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna v. The Workman, Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors (1971-I-LLJ-389), and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the Management to make an interim payment at 50% of the last wages drawn. ( 3 ) SRI M. Subba Rao, learned Advocate, relying on the decision of this Court in. T. C. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer and Ors. (1985-I-LLJ-243) vehemently contended that in the absence of power to grant such interim relief, impugned order must be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. It was a case under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act in which interim relief was sought for. This court referring to. T. O. Cannanore v. Mohammad Kunhi (AIR) 1969 S. C. 430 and a Full Bench decision of this court in Lingamma v. State of Karnataka 1981 (2) K. L. J. 177 (FB) held thus. It was a case under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act in which interim relief was sought for. This court referring to. T. O. Cannanore v. Mohammad Kunhi (AIR) 1969 S. C. 430 and a Full Bench decision of this court in Lingamma v. State of Karnataka 1981 (2) K. L. J. 177 (FB) held thus. (P. 253) : "in view of the principle laid down in the above cases, in order to find out the answer to the question arising for consideration in these cases, it is necessary to ascertain whether the non-existence of that power renders the order made in exercise of the main power futile or less effective. It may be seen that non-existence of the power to make an interim order does not to any extent render the power conferred under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act read with Section 33 (5) ineffective or less effective and does not in any way frustrate a final order favourable to workmen made under that provision. A final order refusing permission to dismiss or approving the dismissal, under no circumstance, becomes futile or less effective". ( 4 ) THE distinction that exists between the case on hand and the decision relied is that, under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal is competent either to accord approval to the proposed action or refuse sanction, whereas, in a reference under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Act, while deciding validity or otherwise of the dismissal order, Labour Court is competent to award back wages also. The power implies an incidental power of making interim relief. Grant of interim relief will be necessary adjunct of main relief in such cases. Hence, the decision in. T. C. Ltd. , (supra) has no bearing. On the otherhand, the decision of the Patna High court is directly on the point. Untwalia. J. , (as he then was) speaking for the Bench, has stated thus (P. 392) : "8. . . . But in the case of Management, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers Union AIR1959 SC 1342 , (1959 )II LLJ544 SC , [1960 ]1 SCR476 , it was held that an interim relief of the kind in question can be given by the Tribunal under Section 10 (4) of the Act. . . . . . . . But in the case of Management, Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers Union AIR1959 SC 1342 , (1959 )II LLJ544 SC , [1960 ]1 SCR476 , it was held that an interim relief of the kind in question can be given by the Tribunal under Section 10 (4) of the Act. . . . . " ( 5 ) THE view which I have taken that if the Labour Court can award backwages, it can grant interim relief, is substantiated by this decision wherein it is stated (P. 391) :- 'i should, therefore, think that if at the time of the final determination of the industrial dispute the award can provide for payment of wages or a portion thereof and if the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of particular case, thinks it fit and proper to give such an interim relief to the workman concerned, in that event under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act the order giving interim relief will be an interim award'. ( 6 ) MY understanding of the ratio in Hotel Imperial case is and cannot be different from that of untwalia, J. , (as he then was), who later on adorned the Supreme Court. ( 7 ) IN this view, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.