ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act which is owned and controlled by the State Government. Virendra Singh, respondent No. 3. was in the service of the petitioner as Depot Manager. His services were terminated on 10th November, 1971. An industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 3 and the State Government by its order dated 23rd August, 1972, referred the dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, for adjudication. The dispute referred was, whether the termination of respondent's service by the employers was illegal and if so to what benefits was the workman entitled. The petitioner company as well as the respondent No. 3 appeared before the Labour Court, Gorakhpur and filed their written statements. The petitioner raised several objections, one of which was to the effect that respondent No. 3 was not a workman and as such the dispute was not an industrial dispute, and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed further in the matter. The petitioner requested the Labour Court to decide the said issue as a preliminary issue before proceeding further to record evidence on merits or to decide other issues. The Labour Court by its order dated 7th March, 1973, rejected the application of the petitioner and directed that the preliminary issue as well as the main issue relating to the merits of the dispute would be heard and decided together. The petitioner thereupon approached this Court by means of the present petition challenging the validity of the order of the Labour Court dated 7th March, 1973. 2. The employers contention that respondent No. 3 was not a workman and as such the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute on merits involved a question which affected the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. It is well settled that whenever an objection relating to jurisdiction of a Labour Court or Tribunal is raised it is necessary that the jurisdictional objection should be decided first before proceeding to decide the dispute itself. It is well settled that whenever an objection relating to jurisdiction of a Labour Court or Tribunal is raised it is necessary that the jurisdictional objection should be decided first before proceeding to decide the dispute itself. If the Labour Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter, the dispute cannot be decided by it but in a case where it may come to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction, only thereafter evidence may be recorded on the merits of the dispute and findings may be given. In Tandur and Navandgi Stone Quarries v. Their Workmen, (1964) 8 Fac LR 277 (SC) the Supreme Court laid down that the preliminary question about the competence of the reference and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court must be decided by the Tribunal before merits of the dispute are taken up for Adjudication. In Management of Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 569 , the Supreme Court observed that the finding which the Tribunal may give on the preliminary issue is a finding on the jurisdictional fact and it is only when the jurisdictional fact is found against the party raising the objection that the Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute. The observations made by the Supreme Court clearly indicate that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the dispute unless the question relating to its jurisdiction was decided first. 3. In the instant case, the Labour Court was of the opinion that the preliminary issue as well as the main issue relating to the dispute in question should be decided together. The Labour Court was wrong in adopting that course. The Labour Court should have considered the preliminary objection raised by the employers and if necessary the Labour Court should record evidence which the parties may have produced in relation to the said preliminary objection. The Labour Court in my opinion committed a patent error of law in rejecting the petitioner's prayer for deciding the preliminary objection before adjudicating the dispute on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the dispute being an individual dispute could not be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court and in that connection validity of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is assailed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the dispute being an individual dispute could not be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court and in that connection validity of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is assailed. No doubt the petitioner raised this question before the Labour Court but in view of the decision of this Court in M/s. Har Narain Ashok Kumar v. State, 1974 Lab IC 318 (All) there is no merit in the petitioner's contention The Labour Court has jurisdiction to heat and decide an individual dispute if reference is made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act. In the instant case the reference has been made under that section. Therefore, the petitioner's preliminary objection on that ground is without any substance. 5. In the result, I allow the petition and quash the order of the Labour Court dated 7th March, 1973 and direct the Labour Court to decide the aforesaid preliminary objection before taking up the main issue for decision. It will be open to the parties to lead evidence in support of their case relating to the preliminary objection. The parties shall bear their own costs.