ORDER : Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Petitioner employer has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to assail impugned order dated 17.11.1999 (Annex.6) passed by Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar, whereby learned labour Court, while considering application of the respondent-workman dated 23.03.1999, has allowed him subsistence allowance during de novo inquiry conducted by the Labour Court. 2. The bare necessary facts for the purpose of this petition are that respondent-workman was in employment of petitioner Institution as Lab Assistant and during his employment he remained wilfully absent from duties. Treating this sort of omission of the workman, as a serious misconduct, the employer proceeded against the respondent-workman and he was subjected to disciplinary enquiry. Upon conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry, the workman was found guilty of the misconduct attributed to him and that entailed removal of the workman from services w.e.f. 27.09.1991. Being aggrieved by the action of employer, respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute by resorting to Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'Act of 1947'). The requisite conciliation proceedings were undertaken by Labour Welfare Officer, Sri Ganganagar and thereafter a failure report was sent to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government, after considering the materials available on record, prima facie, found that industrial dispute is in existence and consequently, a reference was made by issuance of Notification dated 08.08.1995. The terms of reference, made by the appropriate Government, in vernacular read as under:- ^^fookn D;k izkFkhZ Jh jktsUnz dqekj iq= xaxkjke csuhoky dh vizkFkhZ izkpk;Z xzkeksRFkku d`f"k dyk ,oa okf.kT; egkfo|ky; lkaxfj;k ftyk guqekux<+ }kjk fnukad 27-09-1991 dks lsok eqfDr mfpr ,oa ns; gS ;fn ugha rks izkFkhZ fdl jkgr ,oa jkf'k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\** 3. Upon receipt of the reference, second respondent-Labour Court, Sri Ganganagar, registered Labour Reference Case No.208/1998. The respondent-workman filed his statement of claim wherein he has assailed the disciplinary enquiry conducted against him. Subsequent to that, a separate application is laid on behalf of workman under Section 11A of the Act of 1947 assailing the enquiry. Learned Labour Court, after considering the application, declared disciplinary enquiry to be unfair and invalid conducted by employer and permitted the employer to adduce evidence for proving misconduct. Subsequent to that, a separate application is laid on behalf of workman under Section 11A of the Act of 1947 assailing the enquiry. Learned Labour Court, after considering the application, declared disciplinary enquiry to be unfair and invalid conducted by employer and permitted the employer to adduce evidence for proving misconduct. It so happened that after passing of the said order, respondent-workman made yet another attempt to claim subsistence allowance and for that purpose filed a separate application. After considering that application, learned Labour Court, by the order impugned, allowed the same and granted subsistence allowance to the respondent-workman w.e.f. 02.11.1999. Learned Labour Court, while passing the aforesaid impugned order, pressed into service Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders), Act 1946 (for short, 'Act of 1946). Precisely, the grievance of the petitioner is against the said order. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has abandoned prayers (b) to (d) mentioned in prayer clause, therefore, the said prayers are rejected as not pressed. 5. While pressing prayer clause (a), it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that while in employment, the respondent-workman was subjected to disciplinary enquiry but he was never suspended and as such, he was drawing his salary as per the pay scales, therefore, the learned Labour Court has seriously erred in invoking Section 10A of the Act of 1946. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman has very candidly conceded that workman is not keen to reap the fruits flowing from the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court. However, learned counsel for the workman submits that in view of the fact that reference is pending since 1998 and almost two decades have elapsed, therefore, necessary directions be issued to learned Labour Court for deciding reference as expeditiously as possible. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the concession given by learned counsel for the respondent-workman, the impugned order (Annex.6) passed by learned Labour Court is hereby annulled and the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Labour Court to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible and decide it at the earliest, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.