ORDER : Nirmaljit Kaur, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed against the order dated 27.1.2016 (Annx.5) passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Sriganganagar granting interim relief in favour of the respondent-Caveator. There is no dispute with the settled propositions of law that no writ should be entertained against an interim order of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal. However, the facts of the present case are somewhat different and require interference by this Court. 2. The respondent was working as Territory Business Manager in the petitioner-Company and his salary in the year 2013 was stated to be almost Rs. 32,000/-. The order transferring the respondent from Sri Ganganagar to Mumbai was passed on 04.06.2013. On 24.06.2014, a reference was made to the Labour Court against the said order of transfer. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed as late as on 27.01.2016. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced as under : “Thus the application for interim relief is being allowed with the direction that the order of transfer dated 04.06.2013 is being stayed in interim herewith until further orders. Workman Mr. Kamal Mishra be allowed to work at Sri Ganganagar and release wages and other allowances accordingly. This order will not have any effect on the final order of the statement of claim/the dispute pending before the Tribunal.” 3. Respondent No. 3 Kamal Mishra is represented by his counsel before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent Caveator while opposing the present petition submitted that in fact, a dispute had been raised by him before the Conciliation Officer in May, 2013 and it was on that account that the transfer order was passed against him. 4. Whereas, it is pointed out that not only the respondent but as many as 260 similarly situated employees all over the country have been transferred. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a pick and choose policy or mala fide. 5. Be that as it may, the operative portion of the impugned order shows that not only the transfer order has been stayed after a gap of 2½ years of its having been passed but a direction has also been issued to release the wages and other allowances in spite of the fact that the question whether the respondent was working during this period is disputed. This is evident from the following prayer of the execution application placed on record: “It is therefore, humbly prayed that the Misc. Application may kindly be allowed and the respondents be directed to take the workman within service in compliance of order dated 27.1.2016 and computation of the salary/allowances for the intervening period may be made under Section 33 C 2 of ID Act, 1947 in favour of the applicant workman with interest of 18%, in the interest of justice.” 6. In case, the interim direction is allowed to stand, it would amount to allowing the very claim of the respondent. The said prayer shows that the respondent is presently not working with the petitioner Company and is praying not only for taking him back in service but also for paying the wages of the intervening period. In these circumstances, how can an order releasing of the wages be passed. Moreover, the interim order amounts to allowing the claim itself. In case, the respondent is not working as on date, the very order staying the transfer is defective. Thus, in order to avoid any further complication and litigation, it would be appropriate to stay the order dated 27.01.2016 till the finalisation of the proceedings before the Labour Court. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of and the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar shall remain stayed during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. However, the order passed in the present petition shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and taking into account the controversy involved, the Labour Court shall decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from today.