JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the Management challenging the order dated 19.07.2013, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 45 of 2011 (Annexure-6), rejecting the petitioner's application for deciding three issues as preliminary issues first before hearing on the other issues. 2. The case of the petitioner-Management in brief is that a reference was made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, for adjudication of the following dispute: Whether the action of Management of M/s. MESCO steels Ltd. in terminating the services of Sri. Sahadev Mohapatra w.e.f. 10.7.2006 is legal and/or justified? If not to what relief Sri. Mohapatra is entitled to? 3. After submission of the statement of claim by the workman-opposite party no. 2 and written statement filed by the petitioner-Management, learned Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the reference is maintainable? ii) Whether the 2nd party is coming within the purview of Sec. 2(s) of I.D. Act?" iii) Is there any termination w.e.f. 10.7.2006?" iv) Whether the action of the management of M/s. MESCO steels Ltd. in terminating the service of Sri. Sahadev Mahapatra w.e.f.10.07.2006 is legal and/or justified? v) What Relief? 4. After framing of the issues when the matter was ready for hearing, the petitioner-Management filed an application to decide issue nos. (i) to (iii) as preliminary issues first, as the same relates to the question of jurisdiction and maintainability. 5. Learned Tribunal, considering the application of the petitioner-Management and objections raised by the workman, has passed the impugned order holding therein that as all the three issues which the Management seeks to be taken up first as preliminary issues involves question of facts and requires evidence to be adduced, the same cannot be allowed. Learned Tribunal has further hold that hearing on the three issues as preliminary issues would amount to piecemeal trial of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the issue nos. (i) to (iii) relate to maintainability of the dispute and also with regard to jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal to adjudicate the same, the three issues should have been taken up first preliminary issues before hearing on the other issues. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner-Management has relied upon the decisions of the apex Court in the case of The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner-Management has relied upon the decisions of the apex Court in the case of The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe Tara and Others Vs. Director, Social Welfare and Others, & Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar Vs. Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and Another, 7. The concept of taking up preliminary issues first before deciding the other issues is embodied under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C., which provides that where issues both of law and of facts arise in the same suit and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the maintainability of the suit. For that purpose, the Court may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of other issues until after the preliminary issue has been determined. 8. It is now well settled in law that a mixed question of law and facts cannot be adjudicated upon as a preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. The jurisdiction to try issues of law apart from the issues of facts may be exercised only where in the opinion of the Court, the whole suit can be disposed of on the issues of law alone. 9. In the present case, the petitioner-Management has sought for trial of the issue nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) as detailed above, as preliminary issues, which undoubtedly involves question of facts and therefore evidence would be necessary to adjudicate the same. Therefore, learned Tribunal was fully justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-Management. Piecemeal trial of the labour dispute raised by the workman in the instant case is neither warranted nor desirable. 10. The desirability of deciding certain issues as preliminary issues by the Industrial Tribunal while adjudicating labour disputes came up for consideration before the apex Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and Others. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under: xxx. 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. Delhi Administration and Others. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under: xxx. 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 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 Art. 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 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. Article 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 the 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 Art. 136 is preliminary 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. 11. 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. 11. In view of the discussions made above and keeping in view the fact that three issues which the petitioner-Management seek to be taken up first as preliminary issues involves question of facts and requires adjudication on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties, the decisions relied upon the petitioner-Management has no application to the facts of the present case. 12. For the reasons as aforestated, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, so as to warrant any interference. 13. Writ petition being devoid of merits, the same is accordingly dismissed. 14. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Misc. Case No. 17011 of 2013 15. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition no order is required to be passed. Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. Final Result : Dismissed