A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) VALIDITY of the proceeding before the Presiding Officer, labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I. D. Case No. 470 of 1995 is questioned by the Management of Dhenkanal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer' ). Primary stand of the petitioner is that the dispute at the instance of Benudhar Rath (opposite parry No. 2, (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') is misconceived in view of Section 67-B of the Orissa co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (in short, the 'act' ). An application in this regard was made before the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, who took up the question of maintainability as a preliminary question for adjudication, and passed the following order ;"both the parties are present. Perused the pleadings. Heard, issues are settled. The 1st party files a petition praying to preliminary decide the issue first for maintainability of the case. Copy is served. Heard. The petition is rejected. " ( 2 ) ACCORDING to Mr. G. P. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the order shows non-application of mind and the scope and ambit of Section 67-B of the Act which was brought to the notice of the concerned court has not been appreciated in its proper perspective. Mr. C. M. Nanda, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2, submitted that though the order is basically unreasoned, so far as the point raised by the petitioner is concerned, it is the settled position of law that there should not be any piece-meal adjudication and all issues are to be tried together. There being dispute as to whether opposite party No. 2 was a workman or not, preliminary adjudication was not permissible. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the rival submission, it is necessary to take note of Section 67-B of the Act which is the vital provision around which the dispute revolves. There being dispute as to whether opposite party No. 2 was a workman or not, preliminary adjudication was not permissible. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the rival submission, it is necessary to take note of Section 67-B of the Act which is the vital provision around which the dispute revolves. Same reads as follows :"67-B. Powers of the Tribunal (1) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, any dispute arising in connection with the election of any office-bearer of a Society, or the disciplinary action taken by a Society or its Committee against any paid servant of the Society who is not a workman within the meaning of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, shall be referred to the Tribunal in the manner and within the period prescribed in that behalf. (ii) If any question arises as to whether a dispute referred to the tribunal under Clause (i) is a dispute within the meaning of that clause, the decision of the Tribunal thereon shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. (iii) All disputes arising in connection with the election of any office-bearer of a Society or the disciplinary action taken by society or its Committee against any paid servant of the Society, with whatever authority under this Act. Rules or any Regulation framed under this act pending as on the date of commencement of the Orissa Co-operative societies (Amendment) Act, 1991. shall stand transferred to the Tribunal which shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. (2) The Tribunal may, pending the decision of the dispute, make such interlocutory orders as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice. (3) The Tribunal may call for and examine records of proceeding in which appeal lies to it, but appeal has not been filed, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or decision made therein and if any such case it appears to the Tribunal that any order or decision should be revised, modified or annulled, it may make such order as it thinks fit, after affording to the person likely to be affected adversely by such order, an opportunity of being heard. (4) While deciding appeals, the Tribunal may exercise all the powers conferred upon the appellate Court by Order XLI of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 5 of 1908. " ( 4 ) A bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 67-B makes it dear that the Tribunal has Jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising in connection with the disciplinary action taken by a Society or its Committee against any paid servants of the Society who is and a workman within the meaning of Clause (8) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the 'industrial act' ). The position, therefore, is clear that if the dispute relates to a paid-servant of the Society who is not a workman within the meaning of Clause (8) of Section 2, the matter is to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. Great emphasis was laid on sub-section (1) (iii) of Section 67-B to state that there is no requirement in the said provision that the dispute would relate to a person other than a workman. It is the accepted position in law that in the matter of interpretation of statutes the entire provision has to be read as a whole, and in case there is any contrary meaning available to be inferred, the effect of entire provision has to be taken note of. The statute, must be read as a whole and every provision in the statute must be construed with reference to the context and the other clauses in the statute so as, as far as possible, to make the whole statute consistent. Not only the statute but also every section (and sub-section thereof) has to be read as a whole and together, and not in isolation. One provision in statute is to be interpreted in a manner, so as not to nullify the Section, it has to construe the two sub-sections as a whole each portion throwing light, if need be, on the rest. The two sub-sections must be read as part of an integral whole and as being inter-dependent, an attempt should be made in construing them to reconcile them if it is reasonably possible to do so, and to avoid repugnancy. The two sub-sections must be read as part of an integral whole and as being inter-dependent, an attempt should be made in construing them to reconcile them if it is reasonably possible to do so, and to avoid repugnancy. In view of the clear stipulation in sub-section (1) (i) of Section 67-13 that the dispute must relate to a person who is not a workman, absence of such a requirement in sub-section (1) (iii)as contended is really of no consequence. In any event, that provision relates to transfer of dispute inter alia relating to disciplinary action against any paid servant of the Company, pending as on the date of commencement of Orissa co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1991 to the Tribunal. The case at hand is not covered by that contingency. ( 5 ) IN the past, while taking up the preliminary issue first it was found that it would cause hardship to the parties. There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But, as time passed reversal of the policy was thought appropriate. It is desirable that the issues should be tried together to avoid inconvenience to the parties. Only where the Tribunal or the Court feels that threshold part adjudication is really necessary, and would not lead to any prejudicial consequences there can be part adjudication of the issue. This would be done keeping in view the principles embodies in Order XIV, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'cpc' ). Where a dispute exists on a factual aspect as to whether a particular person is a workman or not. it is not for the Tribunal or the Court to determine that question as a preliminary issue. In the case at hand while the petitioner states that the opposite party No. 2 employee was not a workman, a dispute is raised as to the correctness of such stand by the said opposite party to be adjudicated on factual aspects. The objection raised prima fade cannot be said to be of such nature as to be decided as a preliminary issue. That being the position, the Presiding Officer. Labour Court was justified in directing that all the issues are to be taken up together. The Presiding officer had dealt with the matter in a very casual manner. The objection raised prima fade cannot be said to be of such nature as to be decided as a preliminary issue. That being the position, the Presiding Officer. Labour Court was justified in directing that all the issues are to be taken up together. The Presiding officer had dealt with the matter in a very casual manner. No reason was indicated as to why he felt that the petition was to be rejected. He should have indicated the reasons in support of his conclusion. Reasons are the basis on which a higher forum can find out whether there was application of mind or not. Reasons substitute objectivity for subjectivity in a decision making process. Reason is the soul of law (Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex ). The principle of natural justice has assumed a wider horizon these days. The right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. The writ application is without any merit, and is dismissed. No costs. Application dismissed. .