ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Tarun Agarwal and Shri Shyam Narain, appearing for the concerned workman. ( 2 ) BY means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the interim award dated 6. 9. 1987 given by the Presiding Officer. Labour Court. Gorakhpur, in Adjudication Case No. 137 of 1982. The State Government referred the following dispute to the labour court, Gorakhpur, for adjudication. "whether the termination of the workman Sri Awadesh Prasad Pandey by the employers w. e. f. 3. 7. 1980 was valid or not? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?" ( 3 ) UNDER Section 4 (k) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, the labour court while adjudicating upon for answering the aforesaid reference in reply to the application made by the employers that in case, the labour court comes to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer was not fair and proper, the employers may be afforded anopportunity to lead the evidence before the labour court to demonstrate that the domestic enquiry conducted by the employers was fair and proper. This application of the employers has been decided by the presiding Officer, labour court. Gorakhpur uide its order dated 7. 11. 1983. The order runs as under : "heard the parties. In view of the fact that employer will get an opportunity to prove the case before the Court in pursuance of their application dated 9. 3. 1983 5/d, it is not necessary nor worthwhile to allow this application. The end of justice will be met by allowing the employers to prove their case before this Court. This application is, therefore, rejected. The employers are now to lead evidence on the next date. The preliminary Issue which was framed ex parte has now become infructuous. " ( 4 ) LABOUR court in view of the aforesaid order dated 7. 11. 1983 had arrived at the conclusion, in rny opinion, erroneously that the application of the employer deserves to be rejected on merits. The labour court further held in the impugned interim award that since there is no application by the workman dated 20. 6. 1980 In which he may be granted interim relief to the effect that the workman has been dismissed w. e. f. 1. 7. The labour court further held in the impugned interim award that since there is no application by the workman dated 20. 6. 1980 In which he may be granted interim relief to the effect that the workman has been dismissed w. e. f. 1. 7. 1980 and he has not been paid subsistence allowance, therefore, he should be paid half of the wages as subsistence allowance. Labour court uide its award has granted 50% as subsistence allowance as an interim relief. ( 5 ) NEEDLESS to say that this is an admitted case between the master and servant that the workman has been dismissed from the service w. e. f. 1. 7. 1980. therefore, not even according to the industrial law nor even general law. once an employee is dismissed from service, he will not be entitled for subsistence allowance. ( 6 ) APART from above, the view of the labour court that the workman should be given 50% of wages as subsistence allowance from the date of suspension is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) IN view of the above, view taken by the labour court that the application dated 9. 3. 1983 moved by the employers has been rejected on merit vide its order dated 7. 11. 1983, is not correct and deserves to be quashed. The direction issued in the impugned interim award dated 6. 9. 1987 that the workman should be paid 50% of wages as subsistence allowance, which he was getting at the time of suspension, is also erroneous and hereby quashed. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. .