ORDER : Sonia Gokani, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking following reliefs: "10. .... A. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order by quashing and setting aside the order dated 23.07.2019 as well as 15.07.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Godhra. B. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the orders dated 05.07.2019 & 23.07.2019. And direct the Respondent Municipality to permit the petitioner to resume the duty. C. Cost of this petition may kindly be allowed. D. ...." 2. The petitioner was serving for more than 23 years in the Municipality on the post of Overseer, on daily-wage basis. The petitioner along with other similarly situated employees preferred a Reference being Reference Demand No. 5 of 1997 through the Union, for payment of wages and the regularization of their services, on the sanctioned set-up. Said Reference is pending before the Labour Court, Godhra. 2.1. It appears that the petitioner, by way of Complaint Application No. 1 of 2003, also has approached the Labour Court for grant of status quo qua the service condition of the petitioner, till the final decision in the Reference and such order was granted and continued during the pendency of the said application as well as the Reference. 2.2. The order of status quo had continued till 23.11.2011, and thereafter, due to non-preference of any application, the same could not be continued. Services of the petitioner was, therefore, discontinued by the Municipality with effect from 05.07.2019. 3. His grievance is that such an application, even if, not had been preferred, once the order of status quo was granted, the same ought to have been continued, till the matter was decided on merits. 4. An application in this regard was made, which came to be rejected on 15.07.2019. Hence, this petition, seeking reliefs as detailed, herein above. 5. A request is made for and on behalf of the petitioner that Section 33 of the ID Act does not permit any change in service conditions, during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, since, the demand raised is pending, there should be no change. 6. This Court had issued notice to the other side and also had called for the R&P from the Labour Court, Godhra. 7. Learned Advocate, Ms. Raval, appearing for the petitioner and learned Advocate, Mr. Therefore, since, the demand raised is pending, there should be no change. 6. This Court had issued notice to the other side and also had called for the R&P from the Labour Court, Godhra. 7. Learned Advocate, Ms. Raval, appearing for the petitioner and learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, for the respondent have been heard. 8. Following decisions have been pressed into service by learned Advocate, Ms. Raval: (1) 'Vastabhai Madhubhai Machhi Vs. Tarachand Vastabhai Machhi and Others', 1992 (1) GLH 60 ; (2) 'Ashraf Khan Azadkhan Pathan Vs. Mariambibi Kadri', 2001 (3) GLH (UJ.) 2; (3) 'Dilipkumar Mansukhlal Trivedi Vs. Dhoraji Municipality', 2018 (3) GCD 2133; 9. Having heard the learned Advocates on both the sides, it is not in dispute that the parties are before the Labour Court, Godhra, in Complaint Application No. 1 of 2003 in Reference Demand No. 5 of 1997. It is also not in dispute that the interim protection in terms of status quo was granted in favour of the petitioner qua his services by the Labour Court and the same continued till 23.11.2011. Subsequently, when the matter was posted on 08.02.2012, none appeared for and on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter also, on a number of occasions, the representative of the petitioner chose not to remain present and since, no application had been tendered for extending the stay, the same was vacated. Eventually, when the services of the petitioner came to be terminated, in wake of the non-continuation of the stay order, he approached the Labour Court concerned and made a request for restoring the order, the same came to be rejected. This has been done on the ground that the continuing such order would amount to granting mandatory stay in favour of the petitioner. The subsequent order of terminating his services also, according to the Labour Court, would enable the petitioner to take the legal course and the order of status quo, which had not continued, shall not be required to be considered. Accordingly, interim relief has not been continued and the Court had posted the Complaint Application No. 1 of 2003 for hearing on 20.08.2019. Now, the next hearing is scheduled on 16.11.2019. 10. The decisions, which are sought to be relied on by the learned Advocate, Ms. Accordingly, interim relief has not been continued and the Court had posted the Complaint Application No. 1 of 2003 for hearing on 20.08.2019. Now, the next hearing is scheduled on 16.11.2019. 10. The decisions, which are sought to be relied on by the learned Advocate, Ms. Rawal, lay down the ratio that the revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised in the interest of justice and for the benefit of the poor persons and if, the Court does not exercise the discretion in favour of the affected persons, it will result in failure of justice. This Court, thus, has emphatically stated that mere technical ground ought not to weigh with the Court, since, if, the Court does not exercise the discretion, this may result in parties getting seriously affected. 11. Learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, has relied on the following decisions, which refer to the requirement of the Tribunal not to grant interim relief to an employee by way of an order of reinstatement or grant of full backwages in a complaint under Section 33A of the Act, since, such aspects are to be decided speedily and to put an end to one way or the other. This Court has also mandated that the Courts should dispose of such applications of the parties quickly: (1) 'Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited Vs. Rameshward Dayal', AIR 1961 SC 689 ; (2) 'Hindustan General Electrical Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bishwanath Prasad', (1971) 2 SCC 605 ; (3) 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Satya Prakash', (2013) 9 SCC 232 ; 12. Bearing in mind the fact that the matters on merits are, yet, pending before the Court below, let the Complaint Application No. 1 of 2003 be decided by the Court concerned within a period of SIX WEEKS from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the parties shall cooperate. 12.1. In the event, if, the same is held against either of the parties, the concerned party shall have the recourse open under the law. The non-continuation of the order of status quo shall NOT COME in the way of the either party in the Court deciding the matter on merits. Further, the parties shall cooperate. 12.1. In the event, if, the same is held against either of the parties, the concerned party shall have the recourse open under the law. The non-continuation of the order of status quo shall NOT COME in the way of the either party in the Court deciding the matter on merits. The order of the Court below, so far as, after once, the Labour Court decides the matter on merits and holds that the action of the Municipality was in breach of any of the provisions of law or was contrary to law, considering the discontinuation of the order of the status quo, the trial Court shall not be precluded from even setting aside the subsequent action of the Municipality and grant appropriate reliefs as deemed just. This order of discontinuation of status quo will be not be pleaded by the Municipality, as a technical ground. 12.2. Bearing in mind, the facts and circumstances in which the order of ending the services has been passed, the contention of both the sides are kept open, subject to the observations made by this Court, herein above. 12.3. It is being specially mentioned as a parting noted that the reason, as to why, this Court chose not to quash and set aside the impugned orders, is because this Court has DIRECTED the Labour Court that Complaint Application No. 1 of 2003 is to be decided within the time-bound schedule. 13. None of the observations made herein above shall come in the way of the either side nor shall that influence the Court below in deciding the proceedings, pending before it and the same shall be decided independently, on its own merits. 14. As a parting note, a reference is required to be made to the communication dated 05.07.2019, where, there is a reference of an application dated 08.07.2017, which, according to the learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, is made due to inadvertence. 14.1. It is agreed by both the sides that there is no such application ever withdrawn by either side from the Labour Court. DISPOSED OFF, accordingly. Direct service is permitted.