https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173301 Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act confines the Tribunal to the points of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto, and a jurisdictional objection such as whether an establishment is an industry may be considered incidentally. The Court held that industrial adjudication should not be delayed by repeated preliminary objections and that separate determination of such objections can cause avoidable delay and multiple challenges. The Tribunal was therefore justified in directing that the preliminary question be heard with the main issues, and the High Court was right to refuse interlocutory interference under Article 226. en-us Thu, 15 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:53:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173301 Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act confines the Tribunal to the points of dispute referred and matters incidental thereto, and a jurisdictional objection such as whether an establishment is an industry may be considered incidentally. The Court held that industrial adjudication should not be delayed by repeated preliminary objections and that separate determination of such objections can cause avoidable delay and multiple challenges. The Tribunal was therefore justified in directing that the preliminary question be heard with the main issues, and the High Court was right to refuse interlocutory interference under Article 226. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173301