JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Babu Marlapalle for the Petitioner and Mr. M. R. Reddy, Advocate for Resp. No. 1. Mr. Marlapalle seeks permission to delete the name of Resp. No. 2. Permission granted. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The Respondent No. 1 was an employee of the Petitioner and after holding a domestic enquiry, she came to be dismissed from service under an order dated December 28, 1990. An appeal preferred to the Managing Director of the Petitioner-Company, as per the Standing Orders came to be dismissed on January 28, 1991. Thereafter, Complaint No. 77 of 1991 was filed by her before the Labour Court at Aurangabad. An application for interim relief was made in that matter and under the orders dated June 29, 1991, the said application was allowed and the present-Petitioner was directed to reinstate the complainant in service till the disposal of the complaint. The Revision Petition U.L.P. No. 31/91 preferred in the Hon'ble Court at Aurangabad came to be dismissed finally on August 2, 1991. A Review Petition made to the Hon'ble Court came to be rejected on February 26, 1993. The Petitioner had approached this Court having felt aggrieved by the aforesaid orders. 4. In some other proceeding, the matter had reached this High Court and interim orders have been passed directing the Petitioner to deposit in the Court the amounts of wages of the Petitioner. The learned Advocates for the parties said before this Court that amounts were allowed to be withdrawn twice and the application for permission to withdrawal of third amount is still pending and is fixed on April 2, 1993 before this very court. 5. The impugned order of the Labour Court directing the reinstatement, as an interim measure, was unjustified because that was in a way granting to the original complainant the final relief that was sought for. It was enough to direct even at this stage that her pecuniary interest should be protected during the pendency of the enquiry of the proceeding. In view of this consideration, the impugned order regarding the reinstatement shall stand suspended on the condition that the Petitioner shall deposit in this Court the amount of wages which would be payable to the Petitioner but for the order of dismissal that was passed against the Respondent. In view of this consideration, the impugned order regarding the reinstatement shall stand suspended on the condition that the Petitioner shall deposit in this Court the amount of wages which would be payable to the Petitioner but for the order of dismissal that was passed against the Respondent. It is also necessary to direct, in view of the prolonged history of the litigation between the parties, that the Complaint No. 77/1991 should be heard and disposed of according to law by the Labour Court at Aurangabad, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than June 30, 1993. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed. Rule made absolute accordingly.