DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE judgment and order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Rajkot on 27/12/1984 in Reference (LCR) no. 511 of 1982 is under challenge in this petition under Art. 227 of the constitution of India. Thereby, the Reference came to be rejected only on the ground that the petitioner herein did not answer the definition of the workman contained in Sec. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the act for brief ). ( 2 ) THE only reason given by the Labour Court for rejecting the Reference on the ground that the petitioner herein was not a workman was that his salary was in excess of Rs. 1,000. 00 on the date of the Reference. It appears that the Labour Court has lost sight of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat amendment) Act, 1981 (the Amending Act for brief ). By this Amending act, the limit of Rs. 1,000. 00 specified in Sec. 2 (s) (iv) of the Act was raised from Rs. 1000. 00 to Rs. 1600/ -. This Amending Act has come into force with effect from 1/08/1981. It is not in dispute that the date of the Reference in the instant case is llth May, 1982. The date of dismissal is 10/08/1981 by which time the Amending Act was brought into force. In that view of the matter, the petitioner herein could not have been held to be outside the purview of the workman as defined in Sec. 2 (s) of the Act. ( 3 ) THIS point has been answered in favour of the petitioner by the Division bench ruling of this Court in the case of R. G. Makwana v. Gujarat State road Transport Corporation and Anr. , reported in 1986 0 GLH 678 : [ 1986 (1) GLR 392 ]. In that case the concerned employee was dismissed from service prior to the date of coming into force of the Amending Act. The Reference was made after coming into force thereof. This Court held that what was required to be seen was the concerned employees salary on the date of the reference. This Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of R. G. Makwana (supra) is on all fours applicable in the present case. The Reference was made after coming into force thereof. This Court held that what was required to be seen was the concerned employees salary on the date of the reference. This Division Bench ruling of this Court in the case of R. G. Makwana (supra) is on all fours applicable in the present case. ( 4 ) IN view of our above discussion, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. The matter will have to be remanded to the Labour Court for its fresh decision according to law on the merits of the case. ( 5 ) BEFORE parting with this judgment it would be worthwhile to draw attention of the special forums created under special legislations like the industrial Disputes Act and other allied enactments that matters coming before them for adjudication need not be disposed of only on such preliminary issues. An attempt should be made to dispose of the matters by deciding all questions including the question arising on the basis of the preliminary issues. This would avoid unnecessary remand for its decision on the merits of the matter as has happened in the present case. ( 6 ) IN this connection relevant observations made by this Court in its unreported ruling in Special Civil Application No, 1183 of 1980 decided on 4/08/1987 some portion of which is found reproduced in (Shree ram Mills Ltd. v. Jagjivanbhai Ranchhodji Ahir) 1987 (2) GLR (UJ) 14 deserve to be taken note of. Therein the practice of framing preliminary issues by the Labour Courts was deprecated in the light of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors. , reported in AIR 1984 SC 153 . The observations of this Court and the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of D. P. Maheshwari (supra) are required to be kept in mind by the Labour Courts and such other forums which are required to adjudicate upon the matters brought to them for the purpose. If this is not kept in view, there would be unnecessary delay in final disposal of cases as has happened in the case before us. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition is accepted. If this is not kept in view, there would be unnecessary delay in final disposal of cases as has happened in the case before us. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition is accepted. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Labour Court at Rajkot on 27/12/1984 in reference (LCR) No. 511 of 1982 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner herein has to be treated as a workman for the purpose of deciding the merits of the Reference. The Reference should be restored to file and should be accorded the top-most priority for its disposal preferably by 3 1/12/1992. The Registry is directed to send the writ in this case as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 30/09/1992. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall however be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) CIVIL Application No. 1713 of 1986 has been filed with a view to fixing the date of hearing of this matter. In view of the final disposal of this writ petition, this Civil Application does not survive. It accordingly stands disposed of. .