ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The respondent was appointed as a railway employee in 1960 under the appellant. He claims to have been promoted to the post of fireman with effect from 1980. On the ground that he was medically certified in 1984 as being not fit for strenuous work, the appellant reverted the respondent to a less strenuous post. According to the respondent the medical certificate was incorrect and as such he had been examined by two other doctors who had given certificates to the effect that the appellant was fit to carry out the duties of a fireman. According to the respondent, despite these medical certificates the appellant continued the respondent in the lower post at a lesser pay. In these circumstances, the respondent raised a claim under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for reinstatement as a fireman. The dispute was referred by the appropriate authority to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent's claim was allowed by the Labour Court and an award was passed on 17-7-1997 holding that the' reversion of the respondent to a lower post was not justified and that the appellant was entitled to the post of fireman and the pay and other allowances from the date of the reference. 3. The appellant's writ petition to the High Court at Allahabad was dismissed on the ground that the finding of the Labour Court did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Being aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court. The appellant has raised two preliminary objections. The first objection is that the High Court had not considered the question whether the Labour Court was at all competent to entertain the dispute in view of the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The second objection relates to the fact that the claim was raised by the respondent eight years after he was reverted to the lower post. 4. Although the appellants had not raised the issue in their written statement before the Labour Court, but it was squarely taken. Since it was a question of jurisdiction, the High Court should have considered the submission. We, therefore, set aside the decision of the High Court only on this ground and remand the matter back to the High Court for the purpose of considering this preliminary objection. Since it was a question of jurisdiction, the High Court should have considered the submission. We, therefore, set aside the decision of the High Court only on this ground and remand the matter back to the High Court for the purpose of considering this preliminary objection. It is made clear that if this objection is b held against the appellant the award of the Labour Court will stand. 5. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.