JUDGMENT : L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner Management as against the order dated 07.10.2016 in Serial Application Nos.1441 to 1446/2014 (in I.D.No.67/2000) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, by which order the Tribunal has allowed the interim relief application directing to pay interim relief at 75% of the last drawn salary from the date of dismissal i.e., 26.12.2014 during pendency of the application within 30 days, as otherwise to pay 18% interest. 2. The brief facts leading to this case are that a charge sheet was served on the respondents on 31.10.2014 on the riotous and disorderly acts as stated therein. The respondents did not reply the charge-sheet but sought for Kannada translation which was furnished on 21.11.2014. The respondents further demanded copies of the complaint for which the Management expressed its inability to furnish the same apprehending danger to the complainants. The respondents made a pre-condition that unless copies of the complaint and other documents are furnished, they will not furnish any explanation. Hence the Management thought, it was not possible to hold domestic enquiry into the serious acts of misconduct and accordingly petitioner dismissed the respondents by order dated 26.12.2014. 3. The petitioner filed individual applications for approval of dismissal orders under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents filed objections to the said applications. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed applications seeking interim relief. After the petitioner filed objections, the applications were heard and by the order dated 1.4.2016, Serial Application No.1440/2014 was rejected. 4. By the order dated 07.10.2016 the Tribunal has allowed the applications for interim relief as aforesaid, which is challenged by the petitioner in these writ petitions. 5. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents and perused the impugned order. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was serious riotous and disorderly conduct by the respondents which ought to have been considered by the Industrial Tribunal for prima facie case. The respondents have admitted in the objection as to their presence at the spot. There was no ground for taking a lenient view as the misconduct was grave and serious. The punishment of dismissal without enquiry imposed needed no interference and therefore the impugned order granting interim relief could not have been passed. The respondents have admitted in the objection as to their presence at the spot. There was no ground for taking a lenient view as the misconduct was grave and serious. The punishment of dismissal without enquiry imposed needed no interference and therefore the impugned order granting interim relief could not have been passed. The Industrial Tribunal failed to note that dismissal without holding an enquiry do not by itself result in a prima facie case in favour of the workmen if the charges are grave and serious. The Industrial Tribunal has erred in not passing orders on 1.4.2016 along with Serial Application No.1441/2014 having heard all the applications together. However, later the Tribunal posted the respondents' cases for leading evidence on the interim relief applications without any justification which is objectionable. Granting of 18% interest in failing to pay the arrears within 30 days from the date of the order as directed by the Tribunal has deprived right to file writ petition challenging the legality of the order stifling the legal right of the petitioner. Granting interim relief for an indefinite period during pendency of approval application would encourage the respondents to prolong the proceedings indefinitely. The Respondent No.4 (Serial Application No.1444/2014) is rendered unsuitable to work as Operator from 01.12.2014 and grant of interim relief from the date of disablement is liable to be set aside. Granting of interim relief from the date of dismissal is in direct contravention of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in TT Limited Vs., R Subramanian & another,1990 61 FLR 591. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and seeks to dismiss the writ petitions. 8. It is no doubt contended by the petitioner that the employer is entitled to dismiss its workmen without enquiry as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Laghu Udyog Employees Union Vs., Judge, Labour Court, (2004) LLR 331, when the workmen behaved violently, abusing and manhandling the officers physically and snatching the cash covers as alleged. However, the applications filed by the petitioner seeking approval of the dismissal orders are pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. What is required to be considered in the present writ petitions is, whether the Tribunal is justified in granting interim relief to the respondents. 9. However, the applications filed by the petitioner seeking approval of the dismissal orders are pending adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. What is required to be considered in the present writ petitions is, whether the Tribunal is justified in granting interim relief to the respondents. 9. The facts which are not disputed in the present case are that the respondents are dismissed from service from 31.10.2014 without conducting a domestic enquiry. The respondents have not tendered their replies to the charge sheet for want of copies of the complaint. The applications filed by the petitioner seeking approval of the said dismissal orders are pending consideration before the Industrial Tribunal. 10. So far as Serial Application No.1440/2014 is concerned, in addition to the workman therein not offering reply to the show cause notice, was reluctant to subject himself for cross-examination to find out whether he is gainfully employed or not in support of his statement in the affidavit. Therefore, the Tribunal opined that there was no sufficient material to find out the prima facie case at that stage and in view of second party undertaking to complete the evidence within two months, reserving liberty to the workman therein, the said Serial Application came to be rejected. However, rejection of Serial Application No.1440/2014 is not an outright rejection but with a liberty reserved to pursue the same in future, the same came to be rejected. In that view of the matter, the objection raised by the petitioner in the Tribunal not considering all the applications together, is liable to be rejected and it is accordingly rejected. 11. All the applicants in Sl.A Nos.1441/2014, 1442/2014, 1443/2014, 1444/2014, 1445/2014 and 1446/2014 were examined as OW-1 in the respective applications. Except suggesting in the cross-examination as to the alternative employment, which is denied by the workmen, nothing is elicited that they have got an alternative employment and therefore they are gainfully employed. On behalf of the petitioner AW-1 H R Officer was examined. He has deposed that the acts of misconduct are grave in nature, the applicant found them guilty of the misconduct and accordingly, dismissed them from service as the behaviour of the of the opposite party did not permit to hold domestic enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. As to the suggestion that opposite party is unemployed, AW-1 stated that he does not know. As to the suggestion that opposite party is unemployed, AW-1 stated that he does not know. He also pleaded ignorance as to whether they have produced copies of the complaints before the Tribunal or not. He stated, he does not know whether there is any clause or not in the company's standing orders to dismiss an employee without enquiry. He deposed that he does not know whether any such incident had taken place, as such no complaint has been given against the opposite party. His evidence is to the effect that he produced copy of the complaint but he is not finding the same in the court file. The Tribunal found evidence of AW-1 being inconsistent and self-destructive. 12. Therefore, the Tribunal in order to find out prima facie case to grant interim relief, not only considered the fact that the respondents were dismissed without conducting domestic enquiry, but also the admissions on the part of AW-1 as pointed above. There was nothing on record which could show gainful employment by the workmen. The contention of the petitioner that the respondents were gainfully employed remained as a self-serving statement without substance. Unless and until an order of approval is passed, the workmen are deemed to be in service. The Industrial Tribunal also considered failure on the part of the petitioner to comply the undertaking to complete the evidence in two months. Though the delay is sought to be attributed to the respondents, nothing is placed on record to substantiate the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that petitioner is entitled to terminate the services of workmen without domestic enquiry under the standing orders. On the other hand, the standing order is to the effect 'not to dismiss the workman without enquiry'. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the opinion that if the interim relief is not granted, it would cause untold hardship to the workmen. The Tribunal also found balance of convenience in favour of the workmen. The said view taken by the Industrial Tribunal cannot be faulted on the contentions sought to be raised by the petitioner in place of materials considered by the Tribunal so as to form such an opinion. 13. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal has erred in granting interim relief from the date of dismissal instead of considering the same from the date of applications. 13. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal has erred in granting interim relief from the date of dismissal instead of considering the same from the date of applications. In this regard, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of T.T. Ltd., vs., R Subramaniam & another,1990 61 FLR 591. It is a case where domestic enquiry was held and after finding fault in the domestic enquiry, the interim relief was considered, granting the same from the date of dismissal. The said portion of the order granting interim relief from the date of dismissal, was found fault with by the learned Single Judge and accordingly modified that portion of the order. In the case on hand, the respondents are dismissed from service without conducting a domestic enquiry. The respondents were dismissed from service with effect from 26.12.2014. The respondents entered appearance on 3.3.2015 along with applications seeking interim relief on the ground that they have no means for sustenance. Therefore, the order granting interim relief from the date of dismissal cannot be faulted on the sole ground that it ought to have been granted from the date of applications. However, I do not think, the Tribunal is justified in granting 18% interest on the arrears of salary on petitioner failing to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the order. That part of the order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of confirming the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru except that part of the order by which it is directed to pay 18% interest on the arrears. Further liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move the Industrial Tribunal itself for modification on the ground that Respondent No.4 is not entitled for interim relief from the date of disablement i.e., 1.12.2014. On filing of such an application, the Industrial Tribunal is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.