JUDGMENT These appeals have been preferred by the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India (L.I.C. for short), against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2008 by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions field by the petitioner/appellant herein and was pleased to uphold the order of penalty of reduction in pay by three stages imposed on the respondent by the L.I.C. The respondent, B.N.P. Srivastava, was working as a Stenographer in the Divisional Office of the L.I.C. at Muzaffarpur and he was alleged to have claimed a sum of Rs. 85.50 (rupees eighty five and paise fifty only) as travelling allowance which according to the Enquiry Officer was found to be an incorrect claim and therefore it was held that he had acted in a manner prejudicial to good conduct and hence, the punishment as referred to above was imposed on him. This gave rise to a reference of dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad and the term of reference specifically was whether the action of the Management of L.I.C., Muzaffarpur in imposing the punishment to Shri B.N.P. Srivasatava by way of reduction by three stages in the existing time scale per month and recovery of Rs. 85.50 from him is justified or not and what relief is the said workman entitled to. The Industrial Tribunal, adjudicated the matter and was finally pleased to pass an Award in favour of the respondent-workman setting aside the order of punishment as also the recovery of Rs. 85.50 that was sought to be made from him. The petitioner-L.I.C. assailed the order before the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition but the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 16.10.2008 after the learned Single Judge entered into a meticulous scrutiny of the facts and the evidence in this regard but could not find any perversity in the Award passed by the Tribunal. Hence the writ petition was dismissed against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-L.I.C. The counsel for the L.I.C., first of all, informed that the respondent-employee has already retired from service but the L.I.C. deems it appropriate to press this appeal as the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act as also the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal on the employees of the L.I.C. is under challenge and hence the dispute could not have been adjudicated by the Tribunal. This controversy according to the counsel of the appellant would have repercussion on other pending matters also. The aforesaid argument initially impressed this Court and therefore, the counsel was directed to pinpoint the provision which ousts the jurisdiction of the L.I.C. in so far as the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act on L.I.C. is concerned. The counsel for the appellant in this regard invited the attention of this Court to Section 48 (2) (cc) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, but it could be instantly noticed that the said provision is only in regard to the Rule making power of the L.I.C. which is clearly to the effect that the rule making power of the L.I.C. is exclusive, on the basis of which, the counsel submitted, that inferences should be drawn that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be applicable. But the counsel is clearly in error in drawing this inference as it is nobody’s case that the Rules of the Industrial Disputes Act would be applicable on the L.I.C. while holding an enquiry against an employee. But merely for this reason it would be difficult to infer that even in so far as the reference of the disputes to the Tribunal is concerned, its applicability on the workmen of the L.I.C. would be barred as the counsel for the appellant miserably failed to refer to any provision to the effect that the L.I.C. is not an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the same is not applicable on the workmen of the L.I.C. and therefore, we find no substance in his contention. Besides this, even assuming that the contentions were to be finally accepted as correct after appreciation, the question of non-applicability of Industrial Disputes Act ought to have been raised as a preliminary issue right at the threshold when the dispute was referred by the Competent Authority to the Tribunal and that having not been challenged, this preliminary issue cannot be allowed to be raised at the stage of appeal and this is an additional reason for brushing aside the contention. The counsel having failed to establish that the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable on the workmen discharging duties in the L.I.C., apart from the fact that it was never raised earlier and the finding of fact in regard to the charge having not been found to be perverse by the learned Single Judge, we find no substance in this appeal. The appeal, thus, has no merit and consequently it is dismissed at the admission stage itself.