IMPORTANT POINT
Where the employer adopted the tactics of raising a preliminary dispute, the Tribunal should hear it along with other issues on merits. Since this is done in this case, High Court was right in not interfering it under Art. 226 of Constitution.

JUDGMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-Leave granted.

2. After the decision of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Ors.1 in which a comprehensive definition of the word "Industry" was attempted to be given followed by legislative changes in the Industrial Disputes Act, it was thought that the Management or Establishments would give up their old habit of raising preliminary issues in Industrial References as to "whether they are an `Industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act or not", but Samuel Johnson s observation that "one of the maxims of civil law is that definitions are hazardous" is still true and this question continues to be raised almost in every case before the Tribunal.

3. The appellant is no exception and it has also raised the same question which has brought this industrial litigation, still at its infancy, to this Court.

4. The appellant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and respondent no.3 is an association of its employees. In Writ Petition No. 12525 of 1991 filed in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, respondent no. 3 prayed for a direction that the appellant should, like other industrial establishments, have its own certified standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Writ Petition was resisted by the appellant on the grounds, inter alia, that it was not an "industry" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, there was no occasion for it to make its own certified standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The High Court by its Order dated 24th of March, 1992 directed the State of Haryana to refer the dispute between the parties to the Industrial Tribunal and acting on that basis, the State of Haryana made the following reference to the Industrial Tribunal :-

"Whether the establishment                   "National Council for Cement & Building Materials" M-10, South Extension-II, Ring Road, New Delhi, is an "Industry" within the meaning of definition of the terms "Industry" as given in the Industrial Disputes Act."

5. The appellant has already put in appearance and has filed a written statement before the Tribunal in which he has raised certain preliminary objections including the objection that it was not an "Industry" and consequently no reference could be made to the Industrial Tribunal.

6. On 10th May, 1994, the Industrial Tribunal passed the following orders :-

"Both the sides agree that the following additional issue be framed and decided as preliminary issue:

(a) Whether the reference is bad in law?

O.P. Mgt."

To come up on 26.7.94 for evidence and arguments in this issue ."

7. The Industrial Tribunal, however by its order dated 22nd of August, 1995 directed that the preliminary issue as also other issues will be considered together. Its order read as under :-

"Affidavits are not filed. Reply to the application moved on 27.7.95 is filed after hearing the Ars for the parties at length, I feel it shall be in the fitness of things that the parties file their affidavits in support of their rival contentions. The preliminary issues as well as the other main issue may be considered later on. To come up on 26.9.95 for filing affidavits."

8. The appellant challenged the above order in C.W. No. 14201 of 1995 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana but it was dismissed on 22nd October, 1995. The appellant has now come up in appeal.

9. The reference of a dispute to the Industrial Tribunal is made under Section 10 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 10 provides as under:-

"(4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal (h) under this section or in a subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, "the Labour Court or the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be (i) shall confine its adjudication to those points and m