IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 480 OF 2011 M/S. OPTIC FIBRE GOA REP. BY ITS ASST. VICE PRESIDENT SHRI ZAHOORUL HASAN ZAIDI ... Petitioner Versus MR. GANGA SINGH AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Shri G.K. Sardessai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for Respondent No.3. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 9th November, 2011 ORDER : Heard Shri G.K. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Guru Shirodkar, Government Advocate for respondent No.3. 2. The above petition challenges the reference order passed by respondent no.3 dated 21/10/2009, as well as the order passed by the Labour Court-II, dated 22/09/2010, whereby issue no.5A was not considered to be a preliminary issue. 3. Shri G.K. Sardessai appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no question of making any reference, as according to him, it is the contention of the petitioner that the services of the respondents nos.1 & 2 have been duly terminated. The learned Counsel further pointed out that no doubt it is the contention of respondent no.1 that there is no termination, nevertheless, it was incumbent upon respondent no.3 to consider the said aspect before making such reference. As far as the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 22/09/2010, the learned Counsel has pointed out that the issue goes to the root of the matter and, as such, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to decide the said preliminary issue. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusing all the records, the very fact that there is a dispute as to whether there is termination of service or not itself discloses that such dispute has been rightly referred by respondent no.2 for adjudication. The correctness of the rival contentions of the petitioner as well as of respondent no.1 as to whether there is a termination or not is a matter which will have to be adjudicated by respondent no.2 during the course of adjudication. As such, I find that no interference is called for in the order dated 21/10/2009 passed by respondent no.3. 5. With regard to the order impugned by the petitioner passed by respondent no.2, I find that considering the nature of dispute in the present proceedings the issue which has been framed is a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. In the present case, considering the nature of the dispute raised by the parties as well as the fact that evidence is to be recorded to decide the issue, I find that respondent no.2 was justified not to treat such issue as preliminary issue. The issue cannot be said to be a pure question of law. The Tribunal shall decide the additional issue on its own merits after permitting the parties to lead evidence without being influenced by the findings in the impugned order, in accordance with law. 6. As such, there is no merit in the above petition which stands summarily dismissed. F. M. REIS, J. NH