Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the order dated 11.9.2013 whereby applications moved by the petitioner-union for interim relief were declined. 2. Learned counsel submits that a dispute was referred to the labour court by invoking section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act of 1947'). After submission of claim and written statement, documentary evidence was led. The argument was heard to find out fairness of enquiry. Learned labour court found enquiry to be unfair and, as per prayer of the management, allowed to lead evidence to prove charges. At that stage, petitioner union moved an application for grant of interim relief till disposal of the reference. The aforesaid application was dismissed holding that labour court has no authority and right to grant interim relief. Section 10(4) of the Act of 1947 gives ample power to the labour court/ Industrial Tribunal to grant interim relief if it is incidental to the dispute. The learned court below thus failed to exercise its jurisdiction hence impugned order may be set aside with a direction to the respondents to grant interim relief to the member of the petitioner union till reference is decided. 3. Learned counsel referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Hotel Imperial, New Delhi & ors vs. Hotel Workers' Union” ( 1959 (II) LLJ 544 (SC)). Therein, the jurisdiction of the labour court for grant of interim relief was recognised, however, ignoring the aforesaid, impugned order has been passed. 4. Learned counsel has further referred the judgment of this court in the case of “Chief Manager, Ajmer vs. Hitlar Prasad & anr” (2013 LLR 376 = 2013(4) RLW 3410) and, lastly, judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma & ors” (2002 LAB IC 513 = RLW 2002(3) SC 369). 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the record. 6. The question for my consideration is as to whether learned court, while exercising jurisdiction in a reference case, can pass interim order. If it can pass interim order then under what circumstances? 7. Whether interim order can be passed by a labour court/ tribunal while adjudicating the reference case, was taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hotel Imperial (supra). If it can pass interim order then under what circumstances? 7. Whether interim order can be passed by a labour court/ tribunal while adjudicating the reference case, was taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hotel Imperial (supra). Therein, the question was as to whether Industrial Tribunal is competent to grant interim relief with publication of interim award. The Hon'ble Apex Court took notice of section 10(4) of the Act of 1947 and held that if question of reinstatement and compensation is referred to a tribunal for adjudication, grant of interim relief till decision of the tribunal would be incidental relief but it may be granted when admissible as incidental to the main question referred to the tribunal. The relevant para of the judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference - “21. After a dispute is referred to the tribunal under s.10 of the Act, it is enjoined on it by s.15 to hold its proceeding expeditiously and on the conclusion thereof submit its award to the appropriate government. An "award" is defined in s. 2(b) of the Act as meaning "an interim or final determination by an Industrial Tribunal of any industrial dispute or of any question relating thereto." Where an order referring an industrial dispute has been made specifying the points of dispute for adjudication, the tribunal has to confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto; (s. 10(4)). It is urged on behalf of the appellants that the tribunal in these cases had to confine itself to adjudicating on the points referred and that as the question of interim relief was not referred to it, it could not adjudicate upon that. We are of opinion that there is no force in this argument, in view of the words "incidental thereto" appearing in s.10(4). There can be no doubt that if, for example, question of reinstatement and/or compensation is referred to a tribunal for adjudication, the question of granting interim relief till the decision of the tribunal with respect to the same matter would be a matter incidental thereto under s.10(4)and need not be specifically referred in terms to the tribunal. Thus interim relief where it is admissible can be granted as a matter incidental to the main question referred to the tribunal without being itself referred in express terms.” 8. Thus interim relief where it is admissible can be granted as a matter incidental to the main question referred to the tribunal without being itself referred in express terms.” 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court, however, took notice as to how the tribunal should proceed if it decides to grant interim relief. It should obviously incidental to the dispute referred for adjudication. Relevant para of further discussion is also quoted hereunder for ready reference - “22. The next question is as to how the tribunal should proceed in the matter if it decides to grant interim relief. The definition of the word "award" shows that it can be either an interim or final determination either of the whole of the dispute referred to the tribunal or of any question relating thereto. Thus it is open to the tribunal to give an award about the entire dispute at the end of all proceedings. This will be final determination of the industrial dispute referred to it. It is also open to the tribunal to make an award about some of the matters referred to it whilst some others still remain to be decided. This will be an interim determination of any question relating thereto. In either case it will have to be published as required by s. 17. Such awards are however not in the nature of interim relief for they decide the industrial dispute or some question relating thereto. Interim relief, on the other hand, is granted under the power conferred on the tribunal under s. 10(4) with respect to matters incidental to the points of dispute for adjudication.” 9. The perusal of the para reveals that interim relief can be granted when it is incidental to the main dispute and the benefits are admissible and not otherwise. In view of aforesaid, interim relief can be claimed after showing the right for it. 10. Learned counsel submitted that once enquiry is held to be unfair, an order of termination becomes ineffective thus makes an employee entitled to the benefit of interim relief. To substantiate the argument, he could not refer to any judgment other than in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd (supra). 11. I find that the judgment in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd was altogether on a different issue. To substantiate the argument, he could not refer to any judgment other than in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd (supra). 11. I find that the judgment in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd was altogether on a different issue. Therein, the issue was in reference to an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 for approval of the order of punishment. In a case where application is dismissed or withdrawn after filing or lastly if the application is not filed for approval. It was held that if application for approval of the order of punishment of dismissal from service is sought and declined or withdrawn, the order of dismissal will become ineffective. 12. The case in hand is not on an application for approval of order of punishment and denial thereof. The case in hand is of reference under section 10 of the Act of 1947 where the enquiry has been held to be unfair and as per provisions of section 11A of the Act of 1947, labour court has permitted the parties to lead evidence to prove the charges and for defence. The declaration of the enquiry to be unfair does not result or make an order of termination to be ineffective. 13. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted holding order of punishment to be ineffective on declaration of the enquiry to be unfair, it would be contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Kala Singh & Ors.” ( (1997) 6 SCC 159 ). Therein, the issue came up for consideration as to whether an employee would be entitled to the wages till passing of the award, if enquiry is held be unfair. The Hon'ble Apex Court decided the issue adverse to the workman. It was held that even if enquiry was held to be unfair, on production of evidence, if charge/s are found proved and punishment is also appropriate, the employee would not be entitled to the wages of intervening period, rather order of punishment would operate from original date. The judgment aforesaid decided the issue as to what would be the effect if the enquiry is held to be unfair. The judgment aforesaid decided the issue as to what would be the effect if the enquiry is held to be unfair. It does not nullify the order of termination other-wise Hon'ble Apex Court would have allowed wages till passing of the award. The argument to treat the order of termination effective from the date of the order of the tribunal after holding enquiry to be unfair was not accepted by the Apex Court. In the background aforesaid, mere declaring enquiry to be unfair does not vitiate the order of punishment/termination, making it to be ineffec-tive. In view of aforesaid, the interim relief is not based on admissible right. 14. Learned counsel urged that it would be difficult for an employee to contest the matter if interim relief is not granted despite holding enquiry to be unfair. If an employee is suspended, he gets subsistence allowance thus same analogy should be applied. 15. I am unable to accept the argument aforesaid inasmuch as a suspended employee gets subsistence allowance as per the rule thus a right exists in him to claim such benefit. It is when he is in service but suspended for certain reasons. The case in hand is not of such nature. In the instant case, workman has not been suspended but terminated and the enquiry has been held to be unfair, however, as already decided, it does not nullify and make termination to be ineffective. In view of above, even if it is decided and held that labour court/ tribunal can grant interim relief, the prayer for interim relief cannot be entertained only for the reason that enquiry has been held to be unfair. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Imperial (supra), interim relief can be claimed only when it is admissible and not otherwise. 16. In view of the discussion made above, I am of the opinion that claim for interim relief by the member of the petitioner union has rightly been declined by the labour court. It may be that interim order can be passed by the labour court but mere declaration of enquiry to be unfair does not make an order of punishment to be ineffective or make claim of interim relief to be admissible. Accordingly, writ petitions so as the stay applications are dismissed.