8.In so far as the judgment relied upon by the respondent in
Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar (supra), the Apex Court was not
considering an issue as to whether a particular issue needs to be
decided as a preliminary issue or all the issues need to be decided
along with all other issues. In the facts of said case, considering
nature of dispute involved in the said case, the Apex Court
observed that instead of embarking upon an adjudication in the
first instance as to whether the respondent is an industry or not so
as to attract the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, it ought
to have refrained from doing so and taken up the question about
the status of the appellant for adjudication at the threshold and if
only the finding recorded was against the appellant, refrained from
adjudicating on the larger issue affecting the various kinds of other
employees, as to the character of the Board, as and industry or not.
On careful perusal of paragraph 5, it is evident that the
observations made were restricted in the facts of the said case and
no legal proposition of law is laid down by the Apex Court.
Moreover, the judgment in Ramesh Chandra Sankla (supra)
and D.P. Maheshwari (supra), the Apex Court was concerned
with framing of preliminary issue. It is also important to note that
the judgment in D.P. Maheshwari (supra) has been delivered by
three Judges of the Apex Court and the judgment in the case of
Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar (supra) has been delivered by two
Judges of the Apex Court. Hence, the view taken by three Judges
of the Apex Court bind this court.
