Vijender Jain ( 1 ) AFTER pleading of the parties issues were framed by the Labour Court on 4. 4. 89. Following were the issues: 1. Whether the management is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the I. D. Act? 2. Whether the Delhi Administration is not the "appropriate Govt. " as alleged in preliminary objection no. 2? 3. Whether the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of S. 2 (s) of the I. D. Act? 4. Whether the domestic enquiry held by the management is improper and invalid and whether the finding is perverse? 5. As in terms of reference. ( 2 ). The labour court treated issue no. 4 as preliminary issue on the joint request of the parties. However, labour court held that the management has foregone issue no. 1,2 and 3 which were material for adjudication for issue no. 4. I have perused through the order dated 19. 5. 92 of the labour court. It is in the following terms; PETITIONER W/m in person and the A. R. of the W/m. The W/m went to call his A. R. but he has not turned back upto 12. 45 P. M. The m/g prays for adjournment. To come up on 12. 1. 93 for M/e. At this stage, the AR of the W/m appeared and he has no objection if the issue no. IV regarding domestic enquiry be treated as preliminary issue and be decided first as suggested by the AR of the Mgmt to avoid unnecessary evidence. Hence, the case is fixed for 18. 11. 92 for arguments on the issue No. IV as both the parties have already adduced their evidence. The earlier date 12. 1. 93 stands cancelled. " ( 3 ) ON the basis of aforesaid order it was argued before me that the labour court completely lost sight of the fact that it was only issue no. 4 which was to be treated, as preliminary issue and rest of the issues were to be tried by adducing evidence by the parties. However, Mr. Lekhi, senior advocate appearing for respondent/workman has contended that in the review application filed by the management before the labour court it was not specifically stated so. Mr. 4 which was to be treated, as preliminary issue and rest of the issues were to be tried by adducing evidence by the parties. However, Mr. Lekhi, senior advocate appearing for respondent/workman has contended that in the review application filed by the management before the labour court it was not specifically stated so. Mr. Lekhi, has further contended that as a matter of fact in paragraph 3 of the review application the management had stated that they were only dropping the issue of industry and had not specifically pleaded that they had not given up issue no. 1,2 and 3. Perusing the aforesaid order passed by the labour court wherein the labour court itself has recorded that only issue no. 4 would be treated as preliminary issue no other issue was dropped, the finding of the labour court that the management has foregone issue no. 1,2 and 3 is based on no material and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Even in the review application, management has categorically stated that they had agreed for issue no. 4 to be treated as preliminary issue. Therefore, I find force in the argument of counsel for the petitioner that the award in question is based on material which was not before the labour court. I set aside the award. The award was delivered on 8. 4. 96. Almost six years have passed. I remit the reference to the labour court with the direction to decide the matter afresh after taking evidence on all the issues within a period of six months. The parties to appear before labour Court No. 1, on 18. 12. 2002. ( 4 ) THE Registrar is directed to deposit the amount in fixed deposit for a period of six months. The amount deposited in this Court will be subject to further order of the labour court.