JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri K. M. Babhulgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner and Shir V. N. Dankh. Advocate for the respondents. 2. Rule. Taken up for bearing forthwith by consent. 3. This writ petition challenges an interlocutory order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Aurangabad dated October 10, 1995, rejecting the prayer for interim relief. The petitioner has been retrenched since found to be surplus according to the employer and this was challenged in Industrial Court. Later on, it was found that the jurisdiction vests in the Labour Court and, therefore, the matter was refiled in the Labour Court. 4. The Labour Court granted status quo on December 9, 1994 confirming the similar order passed by the Industrial Court but on September 21, 1995, after hearing both the parties, the said order was vacated. This was challenged in Revision No. 73 of 1995 before the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Aurangabad. Since this was only in respect of interim order, the revision should have been disposed of in all properties. However, without taking recourse to this proper course it appears that the application for interim relief in the said revision, which was challenging the interim relief only, was considered by the learned Member and the learned Member was pleased to reject the said application for interim relief on October 10, 1995. This order has been challenged in this writ petition. 5. Time and again, this Court has pointed out that whenever an interim relief is challenged in a proceeding like revision. The said proceeding itself should be disposed of in presence of both the parties and if both the parties are available, either by notice or by caveat, then it is totally improper to decide again a miscellaneous application for interim relief in revision, which itself arises out of an interim order. This revision is pending before the learned Member of the Industrial Court. I would have directed early disposal of the same but again that may consume time. Looking to the facts of this case, I am inclined to make an interior arrangement by this order and direct the Labour Court, before whom the ULP Complaint is pending, to dispose of the same at an early date. 6. I would have directed early disposal of the same but again that may consume time. Looking to the facts of this case, I am inclined to make an interior arrangement by this order and direct the Labour Court, before whom the ULP Complaint is pending, to dispose of the same at an early date. 6. The learned Judge of the Labour Court, Aurangabad is directed to dispose of the ULP Complaint No. 378 of 1994 as expeditiously as possible and under any circumstances, on or before December 22, 1995. The parties have agreed to co-operate with the Court so that the directions of this Court could be followed. Till then, by way of interim arrangement, I direct that the respondents shall pay the salary upto October 30, 1995 only to the petitioner. The retrenchment order, impugned in the ULP Complaint, shall be subject to the order which the Labour Court may pass while disposing of the ULP Complaint. 7. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.