K. K. LAHOTI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the petition challenging the order passed by the Labour Court annexure P/l dated February 22, 2002 by which the Labour Court directed that the parties' evidence will be recorded on all the issues. Previous to it, the Labour Court on August 3, 1995 while framing issues directed that issues 3 and 4 will be decided as preliminary issues. During the trial, the Court found that it will be proper to record evidence on all issues and directed parties to produce evidence on all the issues. This has caused grievance to the petitioner and filed present petition. ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that once Labour Court has directed to decide issue Nos. 3 and 4 on August 3, 1995, then the Court was having no jurisdiction to review its earlier order and erred in passing order dated February 22, 2002. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in expo Machinery Limited v. Presiding Officer. Labour Court 1995 MPLJ 896 and contended that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to review its order. The aforesaid case decided under Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations rules, 1957. ( 3 ) IN the present case, the Labour Court has started proceedings on reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter the respondent and employees filed their pleadings. The Court framed issues on November 15, 1994. On August 3, 1995, the Court has directed to decide issues 3 and 4 as preliminary issues and the case was fixed for hearing on aforesaid two issues. The petitioner has adduced Its evidence in respect of those two issues. ( 4 ) REFERENCE under Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act will be decided as per procedure under Rule 10-B of Industrial disputes (Central) Rules. ( 1957. The relevant rules are sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 10-B which read as under:" (4) The party raising a dispute may submit a rejoinder if it chooses to do so, to the written statement (s) by the appropriate party or parties within a period of fifteen days from the filing of written statement by the latter. ( 1957. The relevant rules are sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 10-B which read as under:" (4) The party raising a dispute may submit a rejoinder if it chooses to do so, to the written statement (s) by the appropriate party or parties within a period of fifteen days from the filing of written statement by the latter. (5) The Labour Court, Tribunal or National tribunal, as the case may be, shall fix a date for evidence within one month from the date of receipt of the statements, documents, list of witnesses, etc. , which shall be ordinarily within sixty days of the date on which the dispute was referred for adjudication. " ( 5 ) THE aforesaid Rules do not provide framing any issue but immediately after filing the return and rejoinder, Court has to record evidence as enumerated in sub-rule (5) of Rule 10-B of the Rules, 1957. It appears that for the convenience of the parties, the Labour Court frames issue (s) so that the parties may understand the issues involving in the case. But there is no specific provision for framing issues like Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in a civil suit if there are several issues and preliminary issues cannot be decided without recording the evidence then it ought to have decided along with other issues as has been held by Full Bench of this Court in the case of R. Umraomal v. P. Jagannath AIR 1979 M. P. 153 whereas this Court held in the judgment:"10. Therefore after reviewing the entire case-law on the point, we are of the opinion that under Order 14, Rule 2 C. P. Code, an issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court can be tried as a preliminary issue only if it can be disposed of without recording any evidence if the issue about jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact requiring recording of evidence, the same cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. Consequently the decision cited as authorities on behalf of the applicant cannot be accepted as laying down the correct law. Consequently the decision cited as authorities on behalf of the applicant cannot be accepted as laying down the correct law. In fact the Division bench Order dated August 25, 1977 reported in Ram Dayal Umraomal v. Pannalal Jagannathji, has not at all answered the reference in clear words either this way or that way, creating confusion, and we are unable to agree with the view expressed therein and conclusion reached 1018 therein, if any, as that decision also has not decided the case correctly. " ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid settled law, if preliminary issues cannot be decided without recording evidence, it ought to have decided along with other issues. But in the present case, in Industrial Disputes Act, there is no such procedure for framing issues and if the Labour court initially directed to decide issues 3 and 4 as preliminary issues and subsequently directed parties to produce evidence on all issues, then the labour Court has not committed any error in passing such order. Apart from this, this order will not come within the purview of review. The court has not recalled any order passed earlier on merits, but has directed parties to produce evidence on all the issues, which is more appropriate in the facts of the case. ( 7 ) THE order passed in the case of Expo machinery Limited (supra) will not apply in this case because in the aforesaid case, ex pane award was recalled by the Labour Court on merits, which is not a case herein. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the Labour court has not committed any error in passing order dated February 22, 2002 and consequently, this petition has no merit. At this stage, it is observed that while permitting parties to produce evidence on all the issues the petitioner will also be afforded opportunity to produce the evidence with other issues though it had already adduced the evidence on Issues nos. 3 and 4 in the case. ( 9 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed of. .