( 1 ) THIS petition was listed for admission hearing. However, the parties have supplied detailed set of documents and since the litigation is pending since 1996, at the joint request of ld. Counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is disposed of finally at an admission stage.

( 2 ) THE petitioner Hindustan Times Ltd. , invoking jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has assailed legality and validity of the order passed by ld. 6th Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar below application Exh. 75 in Regular Civil Suit No. 65/1996 and prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside the said order dated 24. 06. 2005, being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled legal position. It is further prayed that this Court should allow application exh. 75 holding that the Civil Court or at least Civil Court at Gandhinagar has jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit/dispute under adjudication.

( 3 ) IT is contended that the respondent on the date of filing of the suit was undisputedly a Special Correspondent in Hindustan Times Ltd. having his Head Quarter at Gandhinagar and has served the petitioner company for about three decades. The gist of the petition is that the order under challenge requires to be quashed because the ld. Lower Court has erroneously held that the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner is not required to be heard as a preliminary issue in reference to the statutory bar under the Scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I. D. Act), especially when the respondent plaintiff is a workman within the meaning of section 2 (f) of the the Working Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short ). The relevant provisions of the Act on which the petitioner has placed reliance has been reproduced by him in para-3 (d) of the petition and it is submitted that it is crystal clear that only Labour Court will have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute raised by the respondent plaintiff in the suit instituted by him in the year 1996. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred and on account of the provisions of section 3 (1) of the Act R/w section 25-FF of the I. D. Act, the lower Court ought to have held that issue as to the jurisdiction framed requires to be heard as preliminary issue before recording formal oral evidence on all the issues and/or dealing with other issues framed in the suit on the strength of the pleading of the parties. The second main submission raised before the Court by the petitioner is that the Court at Delhi only would have territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit and the civil Court at Gandhinagar has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. So, the issue as to territorial jurisdiction also should have been heard as a preliminary issue. That the ld. Judge has failed in not doing so and in rejecting the application exh. 75. It is necessary to state in brief some basic facts leading to the civil suit and in turn the present petition. (i) The respondent plaintiff of the suit got employment in the petitioner company. That when he was a Special Correspondent of Gujarat having H. Q. at Gandhinagar, respondent came to be chargesheeted on 10. 11. 10095 for the alleged irregularities and willful neglects in duty committed by him and thereafter, after holding inquiry, the respondent came to be dismissed from service on 31. 10. 1996. Respondent, therefore, challenged the said decision of dismissal by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 65/1996 in the Court of ld. Civil Judge (S. D.), Gandhinagar for declaration and injunction seeking reinstatement in service. The respondent also filed an application exh. 5 under O. 39 R. 1 and 2 R/w section 151 of CPC for interim injunction. After hearing the parties, the ld.