Judgment Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent has filed complaint before the Labour Court against the order of termination. Along with the complaint the petitioner also filed an application for interim orders i. e. seeking stay to termination. The Labour Court allowed the said application and directed the present petitioner to reinstate the complainant in service as Superintendent and pay his wages from 31.10.2009. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing revision before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 3. Shri Ghute, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was terminated in October 2009 and the Labour Court by way of an interim order has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent on 08th August, 2011. The learned counsel contends that the same could not have been done at an interlocutory stage. According to the learned counsel the respondent has been found guilty and thereafter has been terminated by following proper procedure. The final relief has been granted at an interim stage. 4. Shri Tripathi, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order and contends that both the Courts have taken into consideration strong prima facie case and thereafter have passed the order. The Courts below have discussed the anomalies and, therefore, have passed the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity and as such, this Court would not interfere in the same in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the impugned order. The respondent is terminated in October 2009. The said order of termination has already taken effect. After near about two years thereafter, the Labour Court by an interim order has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent. The same would amount to grant of final relief at an interim stage. The legality/illegality of the termination order would be decided at the time of final adjudication of the complaint. At an interregnum, it would not be appropriate to direct the reinstatement. The termination has taken effect almost two years back. If the petitioner succeeds, then the petitioner would be entitled for all the benefits. 6. The legality/illegality of the termination order would be decided at the time of final adjudication of the complaint. At an interregnum, it would not be appropriate to direct the reinstatement. The termination has taken effect almost two years back. If the petitioner succeeds, then the petitioner would be entitled for all the benefits. 6. In the light of the above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and as such are quashed and set aside. The Labour Court shall decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of nine (9) months from today. 7. Till the disposal of the complaint, the petitioner shall not fill up the post on which the respondent was working. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.