JUDGMENT In this writ application an employee has challenged an order No. 13 dated March 31, 2000 passed by 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal thereby deciding to postpone hearing of an application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (W. B. Amendment) flied by the employee till the disposal of the preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the reference by the State Government raised by the employer. . 2. It appears from the record that on February 10, 1996, the Government of West Bengal referred the following dispute in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act-: “whether the termination of service of Shri Animesh Saha and 13 (thirteen) others is justified ? What relief, if any, are they entitled?" 3. After entering appearance before the Tribunal, the parties have filed written statement and the employer has prayed for fixing a date of hearing of the issue as to the maintainability of the reference at the instance of State of West Bengal. 4. In the meantime employees filed an application under Section 15(2)(b) of the aforesaid Act, thereby praying for interim relief. 5. The employer came up with an application for staying further proceedings of the aforesaid application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Act till the disposal of the preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the reference. 6. By the order impugned herein the. Tribunal below has decided to postpone the hearing of the application tinder Section l5(2)(b) of the Act till the disposal of the preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the reference. 7. Being dissatisfied employees have come up with this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the provision contained in Section 15(2) of the Act (West Bengal Amendment) it appears that in case of reference before a Tribunal it is a duty cast upon such Tribunal to determine within a period of sixty days from the date of order referring to such industrial dispute or within such shorter period, the quantum of interim relief admissible, if any. 9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the employer vehemently contended that his client having raised a question of jurisdiction as to the maintainability of the reference, before disposal of such, preliminary issue, the application under Section l5(2)(b) of the Act cannot be taken into consideration. 10. 9. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the employer vehemently contended that his client having raised a question of jurisdiction as to the maintainability of the reference, before disposal of such, preliminary issue, the application under Section l5(2)(b) of the Act cannot be taken into consideration. 10. In this connection, he relies upon provision of Rule 20(H) of the West Bengal Industrial Dispute Rules authorising Tribunal to hear any question as to jurisdiction of preliminary issue. 11. In my view, Rule 20(H) cannot in any way stand in the way of Tribunal in disposing of an application under Section l5(2)(b) of the Act. If I accept the aforesaid contention of learned Counsel for employer, then in every case by raising frivolous dispute such employer can delay the disposal of an application under Section l5(2)(b) of the Act. The object of Section l5(2)(b) is to grant interim relief to the workman. It is needless to mention that in order to get such relief the workman must prove prima facie of the case and existence of prima facie case alone gives jurisdiction to the Tribunal to grant such relief. 12. Therefore, if application under Section 15 (2) (b) of the Act is taken up first, the employee will be required to prove prima facie case in his favour and if question of maintainability of the reference is raised by the employer, the employee is also to satisfy Tribunal that prima facie, the reference is legal and valid. 13. Thus, I do not find any justification is postponing the hearing of the application under Section 15 (2) (b) of the Act for such an indefinite period of time when the law requires that the same should be disposed of within sixty days or earlier. 14. In view of what have been stated above I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the employer and in my view, the Tribunal below acted illegally in unnecessarily staying the hearing of the application under Section 15 (2) (b) of the Act till disposed of the preliminary issue raised by employer. I, thus, set aside the order impugned and direct the Tribunal below to dispose of the application under Section 15 (2) (b) of the Act positively before Puja Vacation. 15. I, thus, set aside the order impugned and direct the Tribunal below to dispose of the application under Section 15 (2) (b) of the Act positively before Puja Vacation. 15. I have already indicated that while considering prima facie case of the employee Tribunal should also consider prima facie, the question of maintainability of the reference raised by the employer. 16. I make it clear that I have not gone into the question whether the reference at the instance of the State of West Bengal is maintainable or not in this writ application. 17. The writ application is thus disposed of. 18. There will be no order as to cost. 19. After this order is passed this Court is given to understand that Tribunal has fixed November 7, 2000 as the next date. In view of this order, the Tribunal is directed to postpone the date of hearing so that Section 15 (2) (b) application can be disposed of before Puja Vacation. All parties including Tribunal concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings.