JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:— It was just the other day that we were bemoaning the unbecoming devices adopted by certain employers to avoid decision of industrial disputes on merits. We noticed how they would raise various preliminary objections, invite decision on those objections in the first instance, carry the matter to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and delay a decision of the real dispute for years, sometimes for over a decade. Industrial peace, one presumes, hangs in the balance in the meanwhile. We have now before us a case where a dispute originating in 1969 and referred for adjudication by the Government to the Labour Court in 1970 is still at the stage of decision on a preliminary objection. 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 the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before 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 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 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.

2. Having sermonised this much, we may now proceed to state the facts which provoked the sermon. The appellant D. P. Maheshwari was an employee of Toshniwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd., when his services were terminated with effect from, 28th July, 1969. He raised an industrial dispute and on 3rd July, 1979 the Lt. Governor of Delhi referred the dispute for adjudication to the Additional Labour Court, Delhi under Sections 10 (1) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, was, "Whether the termination of services of Shri D. P. Maheshwari is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions, are necessary in this respect?" The Management straightway questioned the reference by filing Writ Petition No. 159 of 1972 in the Delhi High Court. The writ petition was dismissed on 22nd May,1972. Thereafter the management raised a preliminary contention before the Labour Court that D. P. Maheshwari was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the reference was therefore incompetent. The Labour Court tried the question whe