WP(C) 3695/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. A Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. U Bhuy an, learned counsel, for the respondent No. 3. Heard also Ms. BL Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On the basis of a reference, made by the State Government, Reference Case No. 13 /2007, has been registered. The reference, made under the provisions of the Indu strial Dispute Act, 1947, raises the following two issues: (i) whether the management of the Industrial Co-operative Bank Limited, SS R oad, Lakhtokia, Guwahati-01 was justified in promoting Smti. Renu Lahkar, Sri Ra ben Kalita, Shri Dinesh Deka by superseding many seniors? (ii) If not, what relief the Union is entitled to? While reference was pending with the learned Labour Court, Guwahati, th e Management filed a petition stating to the effect, inter alia, that the Trade Union, which had raised the dispute, is no longer a registered one inasmuch as t heir registration has been cancelled by the appropriate authority and that the d ispute has become infructuous and, hence, the reference may be closed. To the pe tition, so filed, the petitioner raised objection contending to the effect, inte r alia, that with the cancellation of the registration of the Trade Union, the d ispute cannot be regarded as having become infructuous and that the learned Cour t is required under the law to proceed with the matter and adjudicate the issues reframed to it for decision by the Government. Having received the petition and the objection filed thereto, the learned Labour Court framed the following thre e issues: (1) Whether registration of Industrial Co-operative Bank Employees’ Union ha s been cancelled? (2) Whether, if registration found cancelled, the reference is maintainable or not? (3) Whether the Court can go beyond the terms of reference? It is against the framing of the issues aforementioned that this writ pe tition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the pe titioner. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Dasgupta has submitted that a s far as the issue No. 1 is concerned, namely, whether registration of Industria l Co-operative Bank Employees’ Union has been cancelled, is not an issue at all inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties to the reference that the re gistration of the petitioner’s union has been cancelled. As regards the other tw o issues, Mr. Dasgupta contends that the learned Court below ought not to have f ramed these issues, because the questions of law, which these issues raised, are well-settled. This apart, points out Mr. Dasgupta, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in D.P. Maheswari -vs- Delhi Administration, reported in AIR 1984 SC 153, a Labour Court should decide all the issues together and, hence, ev en if the issues, in question, have been framed, the same should be considered a nd decided along with the issues, which have been referred to learned Labour Cou rt for decision, by the Government. While considering this writ petition, it needs to be pointed out that th ere is nothing in law, which completely bars a Labour Court from framing any iss ue other than the issues, which have been referred to by the State Government. T his apart, there is no bar under the law framing of an issue, which is wholly a n issue of law, particularly, when such an issue can decide any dispute in eithe r way. Though, ordinarily, all the issues, raised before a Labour Court, shall b e decided together, there is no absolute bar under the law that an issue of law, which may be determinative of the dispute, cannot be decided as a preliminary i ssue. As to whether the answers to the issues, which have been framed are well-s ettled in law or not, is really a question, which is for the learned Labour Cour t to decide and it is not open, at this stage, for this Court to comment upon. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court do es not find it proper, at this stage, in exercise of its power under Article 226 , to interfere with the framing of the issues, particularly, when the learned tr ial Court has not even answered the issues, which it has framed. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is not a dmitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. The interim directions passed in this writ petition shall accordingly st and vacated.