ORDER S. K. Dhaon. J. - This petition, at the instance of an employer, is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court in an industrial dispute awaiting its decision. The dispute stems from a reference made by the State Government under S. 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act). The Labour Court has declined to decide the issue whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner was fair and proper as a preliminary issue. 2. The petitioner terminated the services of Sri Joseph Solomon, the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the workman). The term of the reference before the Labour Court was whether the service of the workman had been justifiably and lawfully terminated" The employer in its written statement pleaded that it had passed the order of termination after conducting a fair and proper domestic enquiry. In its written statement under the head "preliminary issue" it pleaded : "That in case, for any reason whatsoever the enquiry is held to be not fair and proper, the management reserves its right to prove the charge levelled against him before this Hon'ble Court. It is further requested that the question as to whether the domestic enquiry is fair and proper may be decided, as a 'preliminary issue' and order to that effect may be passed to enable the employers to take a decision into the matter as aforesaid. 3. The Labour Court struck no less than six issues. The substance of the first issue, which is relevant, has already been mentioned above. The petitioner had, on 12th Feb., 1986 made an application to the Labour Court praying that the first issue may be decided as a preliminary issue. This application was disposed of in the following words : 4. "This has been considered while framing issues today". The petitioner reiterated its request by another application dated 7th Apr., 1986. That application was disposed in the following words : "Both parties have been heard. In the interest of expedition and comprehensive disposal of the case, all issues framed would be taken up for decision simultaneously and not one after the other. If either party find it necessary to adduce additional evidence at any stage, this could he considered in the interest of justice." 5. In the interest of expedition and comprehensive disposal of the case, all issues framed would be taken up for decision simultaneously and not one after the other. If either party find it necessary to adduce additional evidence at any stage, this could he considered in the interest of justice." 5. Though this petition has not been formally admitted, yet Sri K. P. Agarwal has put in appearance on behalf of the workman. The remaining two respondents are represented by the learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally. 6. In the forefront. Sri K. P. Agarwal, relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., AIR 1979 SC 1652 and has strenuously urged that whatever may have been the earlier view of the Supreme Court it is now finally laid down that in an adjudication of an industrial dispute a Labour Court or any other appropriate forum should not decide any issue as a preliminary issue. Instead, all the issues should be adjudicated upon together. Learned counsel has urged that the Supreme Court in Shankar Chakravarti's case, after considering its earlier decisions, has not only taken the matter beyond the pale of any controversy but has set the same at rest. 7. Before reading Shankar Chakravarti's case let us consider some of the earlier decided cases against the backdrop that in the case in hand the employer had made a request for a decision on the first issue as a preliminary issue at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, we are not concerned with the controversy as to at what stage of the proceedings before the Labour Court should an employer seek an opportunity of adducing evidence aliunde. 8. In the Management of the Ritz Theatre (Pvt.) Ltd v. Its Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 295 , the employer rest its case upon a domestic enquiry but before securing a decision on the propriety and the fairness of that enquiry it proceeded to adduce additional evidence on the merits of the dispute referred for adjudication. The argument advanced was that the course adopted by the employer in seeking to adduce additional evidence should by itself justify an inference that he conceded that the enquiry had not been proper. This contention was repelled. The argument advanced was that the course adopted by the employer in seeking to adduce additional evidence should by itself justify an inference that he conceded that the enquiry had not been proper. This contention was repelled. Gajendragadkar, J. observed : ".......If the employer seeks to lead evidence in addition to the evidence adduced at the preliminary enquiry and the employees arc; it also given an opportunity to lead additional evidence, it would be open to the Tribunal first to consider the preliminary issue and then to proceed to deal with the-merits in case the preliminary issue is decided against the employer........" "It will be seen that in this ease even though the employer did not await the decision of the Tribunal as to whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and led additional evidence on the merits of the case, yet it was emphasised that before proceeding to give its decision on the merits it was open to the Tribunal to first consider the preliminary issue. 9. In Management of Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd., Madras v. The Workers, AIR 1963 SC 569 the controversy was as to whether the dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal was an industrial dispute. The answer to this question depended upon the decision of the question as to whether the action taken by the employer was a closure or a lockout. Speaking through Gajendragadkar. J. the Court observed in paragraph 12 : "It is also true that even if the dispute is tried by the Industrial Tribunal. at the very commencement the Industrial Tribunal will have to examine as a preliminary issue the question as to whether the dispute referred to it is an industrial dispute or not, and the decision of this question would inevitably depend upon the view which the Industrial Tribunal may take as to whether the action taken by the appellant is a cloture or a lockout. The finding which the Industrial Tribunal may record on this preliminary issue will decide whether it has jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute or not. If the finding is that the action of the appellant amounts to a closure, there would be an end to the proceedings before the Tribunal so far as the main dispute is concerned. If the finding is that the action of the appellant amounts to a closure, there would be an end to the proceedings before the Tribunal so far as the main dispute is concerned. If, on the other hind, the finding is that the action of the appellant amounts to a lockout which has been disguised as a closure, then the Tribunal will he entitled to deal with the reference. The finding which the Tribunal may make on this preliminary issue is a finding on a jurisdictional fact and it is only when the jurisdictional fact is found against the appellant that the Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute. This position is also not in dispute." It will be seen that in this case the Supreme Court emphasised on the framing of a preliminary issue on a jurisdictional fact and the giving of a finding on that issue. 10. In State Bank of India v. R. K. Jain, AIR 1972 SC 136 the petitioner therein had passed an order discharging its workman from service. An industrial dispute was raised and a reference was made by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal. It appears that before the Industrial Tribunal the employer rest its case solely upon the result of the domestic enquiry. It had not at any stage made an attempt to justify the order of discharge on merits by leading evidence on the contrary, the argument advanced on its behalf was that the Tribunal had first to consider whether the domestic enquiry on the basis of which the order of termination had been passed, had been conducted properly and bona fide by the management. If it came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was vitiated, it was only then that the stage had been set for giving an opportunity to the management to lead evidence before the Tribunal to support the order of termination. In other words, the submission was that the Tribunal on its own should have given an opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence to justify the order terminating the services of the workman. Negativing this contention the Supreme Court held that it was essentially a matter for the management to decide about the stand it proposed to take before the Tribunal. Negativing this contention the Supreme Court held that it was essentially a matter for the management to decide about the stand it proposed to take before the Tribunal. It was also emphasised that it was the right of the management to sustain its order by adducing additional and independent evidence before the Tribunal. It was a right given to the management and it was for the management to avail itself of the opportunity. In State Bank's case in paragraph 36 it was also observed : ".........But the point to be noted is that the enquiry that is conducted by the Tribunal is composite enquiry regarding the order which is under challenge........" (Underlining by me). As considerable emphasis has been laid by Sri K. P. Agarwal on the aforequoted words and particularly on the word underlined by me, it will be convenient to clear the ground at this stage. Proceeding the aforequoted words the Supreme Court emphasised that the dispute that is referred for adjudication is not whether the domestic enquiry has been conducted properly or not by the management, but the larger question whether the order of termination, dismissal or the order imposing punishment on the workman concerned is justified. In these circumstances it is the right of the workman to plead all infirmities in the domestic enquiry if one has been held and also to attack the order on all grounds available to him in law and on facts. Similarly the management has also a right to defend the action taken by it on the ground that a proper domestic enquiry has been held by it on the basis of which the order impugned has been passed. It is open to the management to justify on facts that the order passed by it was proper. Keeping in view the context in which the words "composite enquiry" had been used by the Supreme Court, it will not be reasonable to either contend or infer that it is incumbent upon the Tribunal concerned to record its finding on the infirmities in the domestic enquiry, if any, and also to record its findings on the merits of the order as justified by the employer by leading evidence aliunde, simultaneously. There may be a situation where the Tribunal may come to the conclusion that domestic enquiry was fair and proper and its findings are not perverse. There may be a situation where the Tribunal may come to the conclusion that domestic enquiry was fair and proper and its findings are not perverse. In that situation the question of examining the additional evidence led by the employer may not arise. In my opinion, the Supreme Court used the word "composite" to convey the idea that the enquiry regarding the propriety and fairness of the domestic enquiry and if necessary the enquiry regarding the validity of the order under challenge forms part of the same process. 11. In the case of State Bank of India (supra) the correctness of the view of the Orissa High Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha, 1970 Lab IC 102, that there was no obligation in law, on the part of the Labour Court to indicate its mind about the infirmities in the domestic enquiry at any stage before it gave its finding in the award, was under examination. Before the Orissa High Court the argument was that if the Labour Court comes to a conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not fair it should have given notice to the management about its finding about the defect in the domestic enquiry and then given opportunity to the management to adduce independent evidence before it to establish the charge against the workman. The Supreme Court by and large agreed with the view of the Orissa High Court. In other words. the Supreme Court reiterated the view that a Labour Court or Tribunal is not under an obligation to give notice to the management regarding its finding about the defect in the domestic enquiry and then give an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence. In my opinion, the emphasis of the Supreme Court was that it was for the management to ask for an opportunity to lead additional evidence and if it failed to do so it could not make any grievance afterwards. In paragraph 40 the Supreme Court observed : "......But the Orissa High Court has observed that it may be open to the management to request the Tribunal to decide, in the.first instance, as a preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry that may have been conducted by it. In our opinion no hard and fast rule can be laid down under what circumstances an issue is to be decided as a preliminary issue. In our opinion no hard and fast rule can be laid down under what circumstances an issue is to be decided as a preliminary issue. That is a matter for the Tribunal or the Labour Court concerned to consider, having due regard to the nature of the pleadings and the points that arise for consideration." It will thus be seen that the Supreme Court did not take the view that in industrial jurisprudence a decision on an issue as a preliminary issue is not countenanced at all. On the contrary, the Supreme Court clearly ruled that there can be a decision on a preliminary issue by a Tribunal or Labour Court. 12. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company v. Ludh Budh Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1031 :(1972 Lab IC 573) the controversy arose out of proceedings under S. 33411(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). It is now well settled that the aforesaid proceedings are at par with the proceedings arising out of a reference made under S. 10 of the Central Act for the adjudication of the industrial dispute. In this case the controversy was as to whether the management had made a request for an opportunity to adduce additional evidence to sustain a finding on merits as recorded in a domestic enquiry at an appropriate point of time. The Supreme Court reiterated that it, was not the duty of the Tribunal to suo motu provide an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence even though the management had made no such request. After reviewing the various cases decided by it earlier, the Supreme Court, speaking through Vaidialingam, J. in paragraph 60 set out seven broad principles. The fourth principle is relevant to the present controversy and is being quoted in extenso : "(4) When a domestic enquiry has been held by the management and the management relies on the same, it is open to the latter to request the tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management. However, elaborate and cumbersome the procedure may be. under such circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to deal, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. However, elaborate and cumbersome the procedure may be. under such circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to deal, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. If its finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the management, then no additional evidence need be cited by the management. But, if the finding on the preliminary issue, is against the management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give a similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence contra, as the request to adduce evidence had been made by the management to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings and before the trial has come to an end. When the preliminary issue is decided against the management and the latter leads evidence before the Tribunal, the position, under such circumstances, will he, that the management is deprived of the benefit of having the findings of the domestic tribunal being accepted as prima facie proof of the alleged misconduct. On the other hand, the management will have to prove, by adducing proper evidence, that the workman is guilty of misconduct and that the action taken by it is proper. It will not be just and fair either to the management or to the workman that the Tribunal should refuse to take evidence and thereby ask the management to make a further application, after holding a proper enquiry, and deprive the workman of the benefit of the Tribunal itself being satisfied, on evidence adduced before it, that he was or was not guilty of the alleged misconduct." In substance, the Supreme Court held that it is open to the management to request the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and it is open to the Tribunal to deal, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue, with the validity of the domestic enquiry. 13. In Workmen of Firestone Tyres and Rubber Co. of India (P.) Ltd. v. The Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227 in paragraph 33, the Supreme Court endorsed the view taken in Delhi Cloth and General Mills' case that it is open to the Tribunal to deal with the validity of the domestic enquiry, if one has been held, as a preliminary issue. 14. of India (P.) Ltd. v. The Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227 in paragraph 33, the Supreme Court endorsed the view taken in Delhi Cloth and General Mills' case that it is open to the Tribunal to deal with the validity of the domestic enquiry, if one has been held, as a preliminary issue. 14. In Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P. P. Mundhe, AIR 1975 SC 1900 the Supreme Court observed : "We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice....". In Shankar Chakravarti's case (1979 Lab IC 1192) (SC) (supra) the controversy arose out of proceedings under S. 33(2)(b) of the Central Act. The employer in its application seeking approval of its action set out the charges framed by it. It relied solely upon the result of the domestic enquiry. An award was given. At no stage, before the award was given, did the employer make any request for permission to offer evidence for substantiating the charges. The argument was that the Industrial Tribunal must as an obligation in law at the initial stage of the proceedings frame a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry was in fact held and if held, was fair and proper or was in any manner defective even though the employer had not made any express or implied request either in its application or in the course of the proceedings either orally or in writing. The argument further was that if the preliminary issue is answered in favour of the workman and against the employer the preliminary finding to that effect should be recorded and, even in the absence of any request by and on behalf of the employer, it is the duty and obligation of the Tribunal to call upon the employer by giving it a specific opportunity, to lead evidence, if it so chooses to do, to substantiate the charges against the workman. The argument proceeded that failure to give such an opportunity either on the request of the employer or suo motu would vitiate the proceedings. The argument proceeded that failure to give such an opportunity either on the request of the employer or suo motu would vitiate the proceedings. In paragraph 20 the Court emphasised that in R. K. Jain's case (1972 Lab IC 13) (supra) the controversy raised was whether there was any obligation in law on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, notwithstanding that no such request was made by the employer, to call upon the employer to adduce additional evidence to sustain the charges after a formal preliminary order is recorded that either there was no departmental enquiry or the one held was defective. The Court agreed with the decision in R. K. Jain's case that no obligation in law is fastened on the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal to indicate its mind about the infirmities in the domestic enquiry and then call upon the employer to lead evidence to sustain the charges against the workman. It is to be remembered that in R. K. Jain's case and in Shankar Chakravarti's case the controversy was not as to whether the Labour Court or the Tribunal was justified in turning down the request made by and on behalf of the employer to decide a certain issue as a preliminary issue, but the issue was whether the employer had sought the permission of the Tribunal concerned to lead additional evidence at an appropriate stage. In paragraph 24 of the judgment in Shankar Chakravarti's case (1979 Lab IC 1192)the emphasis is that it is not obligatory upon the Tribunal to call upon the employer to adduce additional evidence, if it so chooses, after recording a specific finding on the preliminary issue whether there was no enquiry or the one held was defective. In paragraph 24 of the judgment in Shankar Chakravarti's case (1979 Lab IC 1192)the emphasis is that it is not obligatory upon the Tribunal to call upon the employer to adduce additional evidence, if it so chooses, after recording a specific finding on the preliminary issue whether there was no enquiry or the one held was defective. Later, in paragraph 26 it is observed that an employer who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before the Tribunal to justify his action should ask for it at the appropriate stage, while dealing with Cooper Engineering Ltd. case (1975 Lab IC 1441) (supra) in paragraph 28 it is emphasised that that case is not an authority for the proposition in every case coming before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under S. 10 or 33, complaining about the punitive termination of service following a domestic enquiry, that the Court or Tribunal as a matter of law must first frame a preliminary issue and proceed to decide the validity or otherwise of the enquiry and then serve a fresh notice on the employer by calling upon the employer to adduce further evidence to sustain the charges, if it so chooses to do. It is again emphasised that an opportunity to lead additional evidence has to be asked for. In paragraph 34 the position is summed up thus : "......there is no duty cast on the industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court while adjudicating upon a penal termination of service of a workman either under S. 10 or under S. 33 to call upon the employer to adduce additional evidence to substantiate the charge of misconduct by giving some specific opportunity after decision on the preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry was at--O held, or if held, was defective, in favour of the workman ...... (Underlining by me). It is implicit in the words underlined by me that a decision on a preliminary issue is contemplated in the adjudicatory proceedings either under S. 33 or under S. 10 of the Central Act. It is thus clear that in the case under reference the Supreme Court has not taken the view that the framing of a preliminary issue and a decision thereon is either expressly or impliedly forbidden by any provision of the Act or is frowned upon. It is thus clear that in the case under reference the Supreme Court has not taken the view that the framing of a preliminary issue and a decision thereon is either expressly or impliedly forbidden by any provision of the Act or is frowned upon. Furthermore, there is not even a whisper in this judgment that a preliminary issue should not and cannot be framed and that all the issues must be decided together. All that is emphasised in paragraph 28 is that it cannot be said that a Court or Tribunal must, as a matter of law, first frame a preliminary issue and should proceed to decide the validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry. 15. Having read and re-read this judgment of the Supreme Court, it is apparent to me that the Supreme Court merely emphasised the fact that in the absence of any application or request by and on behalf of either of the parties before the Labour Court or the Tribunal, it is not obligatory upon either of them to frame a preliminary issue and give a decision thereon. This decision, read in the light of that portion of the decision in R. K. Jain's case (1972 Lab IC 13) which deals with the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited (1970 Lab IC 102) makes it clear that if a party makes an application to any Industrial Court or Tribunal for framing a preliminary issue and giving its decision thereon the application has to be disposed of on merits and on judicial considerations. It cannot be rejected on the ground that such a procedure is not permissible under the law. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankar Chakravarti's case (1979 Lab IC 1192) does not in any manner support the contention of the learned counsel for the workman. 16. In Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. The Management, 1984 Lab IC 276: ( AIR 1984 SC 516 ) the controversy was whether an employee was "a workman" within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Central Act. 16. In Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. The Management, 1984 Lab IC 276: ( AIR 1984 SC 516 ) the controversy was whether an employee was "a workman" within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Central Act. In paragraph 25 it is observed : ".....There is no provision in the Act which obliges the Industrial Tribunal or other forums set up under the Act to decide even in the absence of a contention from the employer, a preliminary issue whether the person who has invoked its jurisdiction is workman or not. There is no such obligation cast statutorily on the Tribunal......" In the same paragraph at page 289 it is observed : ".......In industrial adjudication, issues are of two types: (i) those referred by the Government for adjudication and set out in the order of reference and (ii) incidental issues which are sometimes the issues of law or issues of mixed law and fact. The Tribunal may as well frame preliminary issues if the point on which the parties are at variance, as reflected in the preliminary issues, go to the root of the matter." It is thus clear that if a proper request is made at the appropriate stage either by an employer or an employee before the Tribunal or any other forum created under the Act for the framing of a preliminary issue the same may be considered and allowed and the Tribunal concerned may frame a preliminary issue, if such an issue goes to the root of the matter. It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court in Shankar Chakravarti's case and in Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (supra) spoke through D. S. Desai, J. as he then was. The submission made on behalf of the workman, therefore has to be repelled. 17. Section 11(1) of the Central Act and S. 5-C of the U. P. Act are analogous. The forums created under the two Acts are enjoined to follow such procedure as they think fit. Of course, such a procedure shall be subject to any Rules that may be made. No rules have been framed either under the Central Act or under the U. P. Act in the matter concerning the framing of issues. The forums created under the two Acts exercise quasi-judicial powers. They are expected to adjudicate upon a liswhich is in the nature of a civil suit. No rules have been framed either under the Central Act or under the U. P. Act in the matter concerning the framing of issues. The forums created under the two Acts exercise quasi-judicial powers. They are expected to adjudicate upon a liswhich is in the nature of a civil suit. They, therefore, exercise functions analogous to that of a civil court. They may devise any reasonable procedure to carry out their functions. In Dr. J. P. Kulshrestha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, AIR 1980 SC 2141 in paragraph 10 speaking through V. R. Krishna Iyer, J., the Court observed : "......Any administrative or quasi-judicial body clothes with powers and left unfettered by procedures is free to devise its own pragmatic, flexible and functionally viable process of transacting business subject, of course, to the basics of natural justice, fairplay in action, reasonableness in collecting decisional materials, avoidance of arbitrariness and extraneous considerations and otherwise keeping within the leading strings of the law......" The sixth principle as formulated by the Supreme Court in paragraph 27 of the judgment in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company's case (1973 Lab IC 851) read: "The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective." This principle has been approved by the Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering case (supra). The position, therefore is clear that a Tribunal or a Court or any other forum created under the Acts acquires its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the action taken by the employer upon the consideration of the evidence aliunde tendered by the employer only after it records a finding either that the domestic enquiry was not fair or proper or not held or the decision of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. Therefore, the decision on a preliminary issue framed on the validity of the proceedings in the domestic enquiry will be a decision on a jurisdictional fact. Normally, a Court or Tribunal will not only be acting arbitrarily, but also failing to exercise its jurisdiction if it does not accede to the request of an employer to frame a preliminary issue on the validity of the proceedings in the domestic enquiry and give a decision thereon. Normally, a Court or Tribunal will not only be acting arbitrarily, but also failing to exercise its jurisdiction if it does not accede to the request of an employer to frame a preliminary issue on the validity of the proceedings in the domestic enquiry and give a decision thereon. There may be situations where it may not be ni essary at all to frame a preliminary issue. One of them is whether on a bare reading of the pleadings of the parties it is admitted by the employer that the domestic enquiry was either not held or was held in an unfair manner or was held in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the face of such an admission, the Tribunal or the Court may be justified in not framing a preliminary issue and giving a decision thereon. 18. In the case of Cooper Engineering Limited (1975 Lab IC 1441) (supra) in paragraph 21, the Court posed a question and answered the same thus : "Is it, however, fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice for the Labour Court to withhold its decision on a jurisdictional point at the appropriate stage and visit a party with evil consequences of a default in its part in not asking the Court to give an opportunity to adduce additional evidence at the commencement of the proceedings or at any rate, in advance of the pronouncement of the order in that behalf? ".................In our considered opinion it will be most unnatural and unpractical to expect a party to take a definite stand when a decision of a jurisdictional fact has first to be reached by the Labour Court prior to embarking upon an enquiry to decide the dispute on its merits..." The Order of the Labour Court refusing the request of the petitioner to treat the issue No. I as a preliminary issue and to give its decision thereon has already been set out above. The pleadings of the petitioner have also been set out. No cogent reason has been given by the Labour Court in not accepting the application. The case in the hand of the Labour Court was not an abnormal one. The pleadings of the petitioner have also been set out. No cogent reason has been given by the Labour Court in not accepting the application. The case in the hand of the Labour Court was not an abnormal one. It, therefore, acted not only arbitrarily but has also failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law in not acceding to the request of the petitioner to decide the issue No. I as a preliminary issue. It's orders, therefore, stand vitiated. 19. In Cooper Engineering case (1975 Lab IC 1441) (supra) in paragraph 22 the Supreme Court observed : "..... We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication." The echo of the aforequoted observations of the Supreme Court are to be found in the judgment delivered by that Court in D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, 1983 Lab IC 1629: ( AIR 1984 SC 153 ). Keeping in view the anxiety of the Supreme Court that the employers should not be permitted to prolong the agony of the workmen by challenging in a different forum the propriety and legality of the decision given by the Labour Court or Tribunals on a preliminary issue, delaying the ultimate decision and thereby abusing the discretion exercised in their favour by the forum concerned, I consider it appropriate to give a direction that, in the event the Labour Court gives a decision on the issue No. 1 against the petitioner, it shall not challenge the legality or the propriety of the same in any other forum till an award has been given by it (the Labour Court) adjudicating upon the industrial dispute finally. The Labour Court shall proceed with the adjudication on the remaining issues immediately after its decision on the first issue. It shall act with utmost speed. 20. This petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 14th Feb., 1986 and 24th Apr., 1986 passed by the Labour Court are quashed. The Labour Court shall proceed with the adjudication on the remaining issues immediately after its decision on the first issue. It shall act with utmost speed. 20. This petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 14th Feb., 1986 and 24th Apr., 1986 passed by the Labour Court are quashed. It is directed to dispose of the issue No. I as a preliminary issue and thereafter the remaining issues in the light of the observations made above. 21. The parties are directed to hear their own costs.