ORDER : Tipnis, J. 1. This is a petition filed by the Philips India Limited impugning the legality of the order dated 25th August, 1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay directing that the complaint - workman be paid subsisting allowance at the rate of 50% for the first 90 days, 75% after first 90 days upto 180 days and 100% thereafter. 2. The complaint was filed under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. 3. The only controversy in this petition is to what rate the subsistence allowance should be paid to the workman. The learned Judge relying upon the provisions of the Model Standing Orders passed the impugned order. Shri Rele learned counsel for the petitioner-company contended that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of May & Baker Limited v. Shri Kishore Jaikishandas Icchaporia & Ors. reported in 1991 (2) CLR 176, the order of the Industrial Court is obviously erroneous. 4. Undoubtedly the division bench ruling supports the submission of Shri Rele. However, it is an agreed position before us that the workman who was working as a Clerk with the company, was charge-sheeted as back as in the year 1990 and the inquiry is pending till this date. No material has been shown from the record to us to indicate that this delay has been caused by the delinquent workman. Shri Rele submitted that the workman has insisted that the inquiry should be held in Marathi. Upon inquiry we learnt that the workman has studied only upto S.S.C. Her mother tongue in Marathi. In these circumstances we fail to understand or appreciate as what should be the difficulty of the company to hold the inquiry in Marathi. The inquiry which could have been possibly over, within a few days, is kept lingering from 1990 till this day. Under these peculiar and special circumstances we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction to interfere with the interim order passed by the Tribunal, as in our opinion it was always possible for the company to complete the inquiry at much earlier date and even now if the company is inclined to do so, it can always conduct and complete the inquiry within a short time. Fort these reasons, although, Shri Rele made out a very good point of law, we decline to entertain the petition in our writ jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly writ petition is summarily rejected.