IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.246 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6946 OF 2007 Ichalkaranji Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another... Appellant Vs Bank Employees Union, Kolhapur and another ... Respondents Mr. K.S. Bapat i/by Mr. A.H. Fatangare for the appellant. Mr. Prashant P. Kulkarni for the respondent No.1. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & A.P. DESHPANDE , J. DATE : 7TH JULY , 2008 P.C.: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Upon the complaint instituted under section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, the Industrial Court at Kolhapur vide its order dated 22nd August, 2007 passed an interim order directing the Management not to freeze the dearness allowance payable to the employees during the pendency of the application and to pay them dearness allowance as provided in the settlement dated 30th August, 1996 and 15th October, 2003. Against this order, the appellant-Bank has filed writ petition before this court which came to be dismissed vide order dated 1st October, 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge, giving rise to the present appeal. 2. The principal argument raised before us is that the interim order could not have been passed by the Industrial Court in view of the stand taken by the bank that almost 97% employees have given their option where they had agreed to freeze the dearness allowance by communication dated 30th June, 2007. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that the interim order passed by the Industrial Court did not suffer from any jurisdictional or other patent error which could justify interference by this court at this stage of the proceeding when the matter has been gone into by the Tribunal and parties are required to lead evidence. We are unable to find any error in the order under appeal and, therefore, we decline to interfere. While dismissing the appeal, we would further request the Industrial Court to expeditiously deal with this matter to avoid any undue financial burden to the bank and preferably the proceeding should be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 3. Needless to notice that any observation made in the interim order will not influence the Industrial Court in its final adjudication. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.