JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - The petitioners in this writ petition assail the order dated 04.04.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 67 of 2015 rejecting the applications to decide the preliminary issues regarding the status of the disputant employee and the question of jurisdiction, for maintainability of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that opposite party No. 2 was engaged as a Trainee Territory Sales In-charge in the year 2005 subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the said appointment order. The termination letter was issued to him on 26.03.2014 while he was working as Territory Sales Officer with C.S.D. team of the Company at Tezpur. After receiving the said termination letter, he submitted his complaint before the District Labour Officer, Bhadrak on 14.11.2014. The Conciliation Officer issued summons to the petitioners. After receiving such notice, the petitioners' management raised the question of maintainability and merits of the complaint. Without waiting for discussion before the District Labour Officer, Bhadrak, opposite party No.2-Workman raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(A) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In the said dispute, he has raised the question as follows:- "Whether the action of Management of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the service of Sri Subash Chandra Kar, Territory Sales Officer w.e.f., 1.4.2014 is legal and/or justified? If not to what relief the workman Sri Kar is entitled to.". He has prayed for re-instatement with back wages before the concerned Authority. No notice was communicated to the 1st party management, while it was added as the proforma opposite party No. 3 in the said dispute. The management after receiving the notice in the aforesaid Industrial Dispute Case filed their written statement along with two applications as aforesaid. The court below without considering the applications on its proper perspective rejected the same by the impugned order. Since the maintainability question was raised by the Management as well as the jurisdiction, the Court should have considered the same as preliminary issues. Non-consideration of the same without applying its judicial mind is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be interfered with. Since the maintainability question was raised by the Management as well as the jurisdiction, the Court should have considered the same as preliminary issues. Non-consideration of the same without applying its judicial mind is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be interfered with. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions of the Apex Court as well as decision of this Courts and other High Courts i.e., Hussaan Mithu Mhasvadkar v. Bombay iron & Steel Labour Board and another, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3290 , W.P.(C) No. 20947 of 2012 (Menaka Mallick v. The E.D., SAIL & Anr), Nashik Merchants' Co-Operative Bank Ltd., v. Madhukar Bhaurao Hingmire reported in 2012 (II) LLJ 139 , Dharambir Singh v. Hindustan Unilever Limited & Ors reported in 2015 LLR 599, Sailendra Kumar v. The Secretary (Labour) and others, reported in 2015 (4) LLJ 599 and W.P.(C) No.11213 of 2012 (Zydus Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Sri B. Raja Ram Patra). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Workman supported the impugned order and submitted that the appointment letter under Annexure-1 was served to the workman at his native place at Bhadrak. The question of maintainability and the preliminary issues as raised by the Management are to be considered in the facts and law and rightly the court has passed the impugned order rejecting the same. In the meantime the parties have adduced their evidence before the Labour Court. The impugned order being an interim order, the same need not be interfered with to stall the proceeding, which amounts to harassment to the workman. In support of his contention, he has cited a decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and others, reported in AIR 1984 SC 153 , National Council for Cements Buildings Materials v. State of Haryana & others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 206 , Dena Bank v. D.V. Kundia, reported in 2012 LLR 115 and Management of M/s. MI v. P.O., Industrial Tribunal (W.P.(C) No.18342 of 2013 decided on 13th August, 2013). 4. Considering the aforesaid rival contentions raised by the parties and after going through the records, it indicates that there is contentious issues between the parties as regards to the maintainability of the complaint and the cause of action arose. Admittedly the parties have adduced their evidence before the Labour Court. 4. Considering the aforesaid rival contentions raised by the parties and after going through the records, it indicates that there is contentious issues between the parties as regards to the maintainability of the complaint and the cause of action arose. Admittedly the parties have adduced their evidence before the Labour Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari (supra) held as follows:- "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. 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 down. 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 aforesaid decision of the Apex Court still holds the field. 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 aforesaid decision of the Apex Court still holds the field. In the case of Dena Bank (supra), it was held that the interim orders passed by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in the Writ Petitions and final award can be challenged as the reference was not decided by the interim order. 5. In view of the above settled position of law, since the parties have already adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceeding at this stage. The Tribunal has rightly held that it is not possible to come to a conclusion whether the 2nd party has raised the industrial dispute before the appropriate Conciliation Officer or not at that stage. Hence, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference with the same by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed