Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.- The present writ petition arises out of pending proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, Agra in Adjudication Case No. 29 of 2008, at the instance of the employer. Shri Shiv Kumar, respondent No. 4 herein claiming himself to be Supervisor of the petitioner Industry raised an industrial dispute which has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Agra and is pending adjudication. 2. The petitioners claimed that the reference made by the State Government under Section 4-K of U.R Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Agra is not maintainable as the respondent No. 4 Shiv Kumar is not a workman within the meaning of "workman" as contained under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act. A written statement has been filed by the petitioners through affidavit dated 30.9.2008 raising therein number of pleas. An application being Paper No. 18-D dated 9.12.2009 was filed before the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act is bad in law and not maintainable as the petitioner No. 1 is a Small Scale Industry of seasonal character and it functions intermittently with the help of temporary furnace. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 20.1.2010 ordered that the said application shall be considered at the time of final adjudication of the case as the pleas sought to be raised therein are the basis of the defence on behalf of the petitioners-employer. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Shri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the facts as disclosed in the written statement by the contesting respondent No. 4 Shiv Kumar that he is a Supervisor, the reference of dispute to Industrial Tribunal is bad as the respondent No. 4 is not a workman within the meaning of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. Reference was made by him on certain provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as also Central Industrial Dispute Act. Reference was made to a case of Somnath Tulshiram Galande v. Presiding Officer, IInd Labour Court, Pune and others, 2008(117) FLR 1491 wherein it has been held that the definition of 'workman1 under Section 2(s) is very wide in its terms and specifically excludes the person who works in a supervisor capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs. Reference was made to a case of Somnath Tulshiram Galande v. Presiding Officer, IInd Labour Court, Pune and others, 2008(117) FLR 1491 wherein it has been held that the definition of 'workman1 under Section 2(s) is very wide in its terms and specifically excludes the person who works in a supervisor capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs. 1600/- per month and exercises either the nature of duties attached to the Officer or by reason of the power vested in him, functions mainly in a managerial capacity. 4. Reference was also placed on unreported judgment of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No. 11718 of 1981, M/s. Satya Narain Glass Works v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra and another, dated 16.8.1983. 5. Considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. It is not necessary to decide the issue at this stage as the factual aspect of the case has yet to be examined by the Industrial Tribunal. As noticed herein above, the Tribunal has not taken any decision so far as to whether the respondent No. 4 is a workman or not or the dispute referred to it is an industrial dispute or not. No finding on the factual aspect of the case has been recorded yet. 7. By the impugned order dated 20.1.2010 only this much has been provided that the point sought to be raised through the application shall be heard and considered at the time of the final adjudication of the case. The said approach of the Industrial Tribunal is quite reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court at this stage. This Court is of the view that the Tribunal has not taken any decision on the merits of the case and as such no writ or direction can be issued to quash the said order dated 20.1.2010. The Industrial Dispute Act is a welfare piece of legislation for the welfare of workman. It is expedient and desirable for both the employer and the employee that the adjudication of such dispute should take place expeditiously without any delay. There is no provision under the Act atleast none was pointed out to this Court by the petitioner's counsel which may command an Industrial Tribunal to decide preliminary issue first. It is expedient and desirable for both the employer and the employee that the adjudication of such dispute should take place expeditiously without any delay. There is no provision under the Act atleast none was pointed out to this Court by the petitioner's counsel which may command an Industrial Tribunal to decide preliminary issue first. On the contrary the Apex Court has consistently held that in labour disputes, the High Court should not interfere against an order passed at the interlocutory stage of a proceeding. 8.1 n the case of D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and others, (1983) 4 SCC 293 , the Apex Court has held that there was a time when it was through prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. It has been held that 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. The relevant portion is reproduced below: "There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues 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 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 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 under 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. Article 226 and Article 136 are not meant to be used to break the resistance of workmen in this fashion. Article 226 and Article 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 consequence. 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. It is also worthwhile 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 in required to be too astute to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by special tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues." 9. In this view of the matter, I find no justification to entertain this petition. Even the judgments which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, do not mandate Industrial Tribunal to decide a dispute in piecemeal by deciding preliminary issued of first and the rest of issues at the final stage. 10. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.