( 1 ) IN this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the challenge is to the reference made by the Delhi Administration under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referring the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that, according to the petitioner, the company has a printing unit at NOIDA (U,p. ). The workmen of the said unit raised a demand and proceedings commenced before the conciliation officer. Thereafter, an order was passed on 4th February, 1988 by the Labour Commissioner, Delhi, to the effect that reference of the dispute could not be made to the Industrial Tribunal as the printing division of the petitioner was located at NOIDA (Uttar Pradesh) and the Union Territory of Delhi was not empowered to adjudicate upon the matter. Subsequently the impugned order was passed on 28th March, 1989 whereby reference was made under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal. There were three terms of reference which were made.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Delhi Administration to make the reference. The contention of the petitioner is that the Delhi Administration is not the appropriate government which is competent to make a reference inasmuch as the workmen are employed at the printing unit at NOIDA, which is in the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to the petitioner, the registered office of the company is at Bombay, and the unit at NOIDA, was independent, having obtained an industrial licence in the State of Uttar Pradesh and also a separate Sales tax registration and E. S. I, number.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection has been raised before me by respondent No. 2 to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the questioas to whether the Delhi Administration is an appropriate government or not is one which can be raised before and decided by the Industrial Tribunal, and the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal should not be interfered with or thwarted by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) SHRI Bhasin on the other hand submits, very vehemently, that the petitioner is seeking to challenge the jurisdiction of the Delhi Administration to refer the dispute to. the Tribunal. According to the petitioner. the Delhi Administration has no territorial jurisdiction to refer the dispute as it is not the appropriate government. This question, it is submitted, goes to the root of the matter and if decided in favour of the petitioner, would bring the adjudication to an end.

( 6 ) THERE was a time when preliminary objections to the reference used to be raised as preliminary issues before the Industrial Tribunal itself, and on the said issues being adjudicated upon, the decision used to be challenged either by filing a petition under Article 226 or by filing a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. What the petitioner has done in the present case is that it has not waited for raising the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the reference before the Tribunal, but it has sought to challenge the reference itself by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. To my mind, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and others, [ (1983) 4 S. C. C. 293] has set down the new principles as to how the Court should approach such preliminary issues. The Supreme Court noted that there was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy that the preliminary issued would be first decided, before deciding the case on merits. The Supreme Court, however, observed in Maheshwari s case "but the time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy". The Supreme Court has now, in Maheshwari s case, laid down the following principles which are opposite to the present case :

"we think it is better that tri