ORDER R. Gururajan, J.—The petition is filed by the management of Woodlands Hotels Private Limited, challenging the order dated 26-10-2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, on a memo dated 12-10-2004 in I.D. No. 101 of 1999. 2. Facts in brief are as under: Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of Lodging and Boarding. The respondent-union served charter of demand on the petitioner in terms of Annexure-B. The conciliation failed. The State referred the charter of demands for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. The said dispute is pending adjudication in I.D. No. 101 of 1.999. Petitioner filed additional counter-statement dated 12-7-2002 along with an application before the industrial Tribunal raising jurisdictional and maintainability issues by taking specific pleading that the dispute referred for adjudication to the Tribunal is not an industrial dispute for lack of support and espousal by the majority or substantial number of employees/workmen in the matter. Majority of the workmen during the pendency of the proceedings left/resigned from the membership of the respondent-union and joined another union called KTUC Union and raised similar demands before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. An illegal strike was commenced. Management filed an application before the Tribunal seeking for injunction against the striking workmen. The Tribunal rejected the said application. The same was confirmed by this Court. The management thereafter filed an application to implead the KTUC Union. Objections were filed. The Tribunal rejected the same. The said order has become final. Petitioner thereafter filed a civil suit for injunction. Injunction was granted. In the meanwhile, KTUC Union raised dispute with regard to charter of demands. Disputes were settled in terms of the demand under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Petitioner filed I.A. No. 7 seeking permission of the Tribunal to file draft issue and I.A. No. 8 was filed for amending the counter-statement. The Tribunal allowed I.A. Nos. 7 and 8. Additional amended counter-statement was filed. Case was posted for evidence vide order dated 30-6-2004. Petitioner filed I.A. No. 13 for recalling the order dated 30-6-2004. The same was not considered. One Sri Allampalli Venkataraman was examined as a witness. I.A. No. 14 was filed with regard to additional issues. Two additional issues were framed by the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, documents were sought for. Respondents filed two memos in the matter. Petitioner filed I.A. No. 13 for recalling the order dated 30-6-2004. The same was not considered. One Sri Allampalli Venkataraman was examined as a witness. I.A. No. 14 was filed with regard to additional issues. Two additional issues were framed by the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, documents were sought for. Respondents filed two memos in the matter. Thereafter petitioner filed a memo on 12-10-2004 praying that they may be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the workmen on the preliminary issues framed under I.A. No. 7 and not on merits of the case. The Tribunal rejected the memo by its order dated 26-10-2004. This order is challenged. 2.1 Notice was issued and a very detail statement of objections was filed by the workman. A reply statement was also filed. An affidavit of Sri Shivashankar is also available on record. 3. Sri Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel for the management essentially argues that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal ought to be decided first and that therefore the request for cross-examination of W.W. 1 on jurisdiction issue is proper and legal. Learned Counsel took me through the material on record to say that the consideration of jurisdictional and maintainability issue and confining the cross-examination to those issues is in the interest of the parties. He refers to a few judgments. 3.1 Per contra, Sri Phadke, learned Counsel invites my attention to the material facts to say that after dismissal of several I.As, an affidavit was filed and 52 documents were also filed seeking to confine cross-examination to the preliminary issue. He says that no preliminary issues were framed and even otherwise, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the case of the management. He relies on several judgments in support of his contention. 4. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, I have carefully perused the material on record. 5. Admitted facts reveal that the State Government has chosen to refer a dispute in the year 1999 with regard to charter of demands submitted by the workmen. Admitted, facts also would reveal of several I.As filed by the management. Several orders have been passed by the Tribunal and they have also been challenged in this Court. An application was filed by the management before the Tribunal with regard to amendment and additional issues. They were considered by the Tribunal. Admitted, facts also would reveal of several I.As filed by the management. Several orders have been passed by the Tribunal and they have also been challenged in this Court. An application was filed by the management before the Tribunal with regard to amendment and additional issues. They were considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also framed one additional issue and thereafter two additional issues were framed on 10-9-2004. Case was posted for evidence and one witness was examined as W.W. 1. He has given evidence on all issues. At this stage, a memo was filed to confine cross-examination only insofar as preliminary issue is concerned. Objections were filed. The Tribunal rejected the memo. Let me see as to whether this order is sustainable in law or not. 6. At this stage, it is to be noticed that the reference of 1999 is posted for evidence in 2004 after five years. One witness was also been examined by the workmen and 52 documents have been marked in evidence. But at the time of cross-examination the present memo is filed. When the case is ripe for evidence and also when the evidence is led on merits, the same cannot be stalled by way of objections by way of memo to confine cross-examination only insofar as preliminary issue is concerned. It is also to be seen at this stage that the management has also not chosen to seek for any consideration of preliminary issue at the earlier point of time. It was only after examination of W.W. 1, this memo is filed. Parties have cited several judgments before me. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Management of Rangaswamy and Co. Vs. D.V. Jagadish, ILR (1990) KAR 1387 In the said judgment this Court directed the Labour Court to decide the issue as to whether the first party is a workman, as a preliminary issue. But a careful reading of the said judgment would show that it was passed on the peculiar facts of that case. In that case, the workman sought for interim relief and the Court noticed that it will depend upon the question whether first respondent is a workman or not. But a careful reading of the said judgment would show that it was passed on the peculiar facts of that case. In that case, the workman sought for interim relief and the Court noticed that it will depend upon the question whether first respondent is a workman or not. The Court further noticed that in case where no interim relief is sought or is required to be granted, the issue affecting the jurisdiction can also be tried along with other issues. The Court ultimately ruled that it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether the issue touching the jurisdiction of the industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court should be tried as a preliminary issue or not. In the case on hand, the first party has already led evidence on merits and it is at this stage, the present memo is filed, to confine the cross-examination only insofar as preliminary issue is concerned. Piece-meal cross-examination sought for by the management in my view would cause delay in the matter and it is not in the interest of either of the parties. In these circumstances, this judgment is not be available to the management in the given circumstances. 7.1 Petitioner also relies on Kirloskar Brothers Limited v. Its Workmen 1962 II LLJ 732 That was a case in which the Court had ruled that the Tribunal should not have proceeded to decide the reference on merits in regard to the employees of the press without deciding the plea of the company that its press was an independent business, separate and distinct from its factory. A careful reading of the said judgment would show that the Court has not indicated anywhere therein that after the evidence has been recorded in full, parties are to be permitted to cross-examine only on certain issues as in the present case. The said judgment does not come to the aid of the petitioner in the given circumstances. In fact in that case, the Labour Court has considered the issues together. That judgment is not available to the facts of this case. 7.2 In B.P.L. Ltd. and Others Vs. R. Sudhakar and Others, AIR 2004 SC 3606 , is a judgment of the Supreme Court. In fact in that case, the Labour Court has considered the issues together. That judgment is not available to the facts of this case. 7.2 In B.P.L. Ltd. and Others Vs. R. Sudhakar and Others, AIR 2004 SC 3606 , is a judgment of the Supreme Court. In the said case the order of reference was stayed and in those circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to pass any further order in the matter. That judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. 8. On the other hand, the Supreme Court in D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and Others, AIR 1983 SC 425 , has ruled as under: "There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide the preliminary issue first. But, the time 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 jeopardize 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 Article 226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court tinder Article 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. Articles 226 and 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 journeying up and done. 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 journeying up and done. It is also worth while remembering that the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate while that under Article 136 is primarily supervisory but the Court may exercise all necessary appellate powers to do substantial justice. In the exercise of such jurisdiction neither the High Court nor this Court is required to be too astute to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by special Tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues". The Supreme Court has cautioned the High Court not to interfere with the interim orders in industrial matters. 8.1 In Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, Hyderabad v. T. Bal Reddy and Anr. 2002 II LLJ 709, the Supreme Court has ruled as under: "Therefore the Labour Court has been conferred with discretion whether to admit or call for evidence at any stage of the proceedings in the manner it thinks fit and proper depending upon the circumstances of each case and keeping in view the principles of natural justice. If such discretion has been properly exercised and no arbitrariness is involved in it, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to interfere with such discretion. In the instant case, the Labour Court in exercise of its discretion thought it fit to exercise the discretion in favour of the workman". 8.2 In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Krishna Kant and Others, AIR 1995 SC 1715 , has ruled in para 35 reading as under: "35(7) The policy of law emerging from the Industrial Disputes Act and its sister enactments is to provide an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism to the workmen. A mechanism which is speedy, inexpensive, informal and unencumbered by the plethora of procedural laws and appeals upon appeals and revisions applicable to Civil Courts. Indeed, the powers of the Courts and Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act are far more extensive in the sense that they can grant such relief as they think appropriate in the circumstances for putting an end to an industrial dispute". 9. Indeed, the powers of the Courts and Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act are far more extensive in the sense that they can grant such relief as they think appropriate in the circumstances for putting an end to an industrial dispute". 9. In the given circumstances, and on the facts of this case, after five long years, and after examination of the workman on all issues, the management cannot be permitted to confine its cross-examination only to preliminary issue as sought for in this case. This in my view would delay the proceedings. Hence I deem it proper to accept the findings of the industrial Tribunal in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in D.P. Maheshwari's case and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation's case. 10. This matter is pending fairly for a long time Examination-in-Chief of the workmen is over. Hence, I deem it proper to direct the Tribunal to complete the proceedings on or before 31-12-2005. Parties are directed to co-operate with the Tribunal in speedy disposal of the case. I deem it proper to observe that the Tribunal is not to be influenced in any way by the this order in deciding the case on merits. 11. In the result, this petition is rejected. Parties are to bear their costs.