ORDER R. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. An industrial dispute (I.D. 13/99) was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Kannur. The terms referred for adjudication were whether the denial of wages to Smt. Omana by the management of Chala Beedi Workers Cooperative Society for the period from 16th September 1996 to 20th August 1997 was justifiable, and, if not, what was the relief to which she was entitled to. The management raised a contention that the reference was not maintainable and as such the maintainability should be heard as a preliminary point. On the basis of the above contention, the Tribunal raised a point "whether the issues referred for adjudication are maintainable?". After considering the available evidence and circumstances the Tribunal found that the reference for adjudication was maintainable. The above finding on the preliminary point is under challenge at the instance of the employer society by filing this original petition. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 3. One of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Chala Beedi Workers Industrial Cooperative Society, was that the individual dispute raised by the 2nd respondent Smt. Omana could not be maintained in view of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (For short, the Act). The Industrial Tribunal was relying on S.2A of the Act for arriving at the conclusion that the dispute raised by an individual employee also was maintainable. S.2A of the Act reads: "Dismissal, etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute-Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman , and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor ally union of workmen is a party to the dispute." Admittedly the 2nd respondent was a worker (beedi roller) of the petitioner society. The dispute between the parties was as to whether there was denial of employment for the period from 16th September 1996 to 28th September 1997. According to the society the workman did not turn up for work and was unauthorisedly absenting from duty. The dispute between the parties was as to whether there was denial of employment for the period from 16th September 1996 to 28th September 1997. According to the society the workman did not turn up for work and was unauthorisedly absenting from duty. But, according to the workman, she was not permitted to attend duty and there was denial of employment and she had sent a letter to the management on 19th September 1996 itself regarding the denial of employment from 16th September 1996. The management admitted the receipt of such a letter on 19th September 1996. Thus there was dispute regarding the denial of employment to a workman. S.2A would take in all individual disputes regarding discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination or otherwise from service of an employee. Placing reliance on S.2A of the Act, the Tribunal found that the dispute between the employer and the individual employee can be raised as an industrial dispute. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to assail the above finding in view of S.2A of the Act, I find no reasons to interfere with the finding that the dispute is maintainable. 4. Another argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the reference was relating to the denial of wages and not relating to denial of employment. On a careful reading of S.2A any dispute arising out of such denial of employment also can be raised as an industrial dispute. The denial of wages was consequential to the denial of employment and it was on that ground the Tribunal found the dispute referred for adjudication maintainable. I see no reasons to interfere with the above finding and as such the reference made for adjudication was maintainable. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in 1983 (4) SCC 293 argued that the passing of preliminary orders by the Tribunals are to be discouraged. In Maheswari v. Delhi Administration 1983 (4) SCC 293 the Supreme Court held: "There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the lime appears to have arrived for a. reversal of that policy. In Maheswari v. Delhi Administration 1983 (4) SCC 293 the Supreme Court held: "There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the lime appears to have arrived for a. reversal of that policy. We think it is better that Tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution step proceedings before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.136 may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from court to court for adjudication of peripheral issues, avoiding decision on issues more vital to them. Art.226 and Art.136 are not meant to be used to break the resistance of workmen in this fashion. Tribunals and courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must therefore ask themselves whether such threshold part - adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. After all Tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiously special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be Stifled by all manner of preliminary objections and journeyings up and down." The Tribunals adjudicating labour disputes, in the ordinary course, have to proceed to adjudicate on all the issues at the same time. When it is found absolutely essential to decide any question as a preliminary issue or point, then only it need be considered so. The Tribunals should bear in mind that the adjudication of such preliminary points without proceeding to decide all the issues would normally cause delay and undue hardship to one of the parties, especially to the workmen, and such piecemeal adjudication should be avoided as far as possible. In the ordinary course the Tribunals should decide and pass final orders on all the issues at the same time. In the present case the reference had been made in 1999. In the ordinary course the Tribunals should decide and pass final orders on all the issues at the same time. In the present case the reference had been made in 1999. The main issue has yet to be decided. Hence T think it proper to direct the Tribunal to decide all the other issues without any further delay giving opportunity to both sides to let in evidence. In the result this O.P. is dismissed. The Labour Court, Kannur, is directed to pass final orders in I.D. 13/99 within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment. The parties shall be at liberty to let in evidence. The 2nd respondent shall be entitled to Rs. 1,000 towards costs from the petitioner.