Head Note:
“….,the undisputed position is that the appellant was employed by the
Company in Aurangabad, he was only transferred to Pondicherry, the decision to
close down the unit at Pondicherry was taken by the Company at Aurangabad and
consequent upon that decision only the appellant was terminated. Therefore, it
cannot be said that there is no cause of action at all in Aurangabad. The
decision to terminate the appellant having been taken at Aurangabad necessarily
part of the cause of action has arisen
at Aurangabad. We have no quarrel that Labour Court, Pondicherry is within its
jurisdiction to consider the case of the appellant, since he has been
terminated while he was working at Pondicherry. But that does not mean that Labour
Court in Aurangabad within whose jurisdiction the Management is situated and
where the Management has taken the decision to close down the unit at Pondicherry
and pursuant to which the appellant was terminated from service also does not
have the jurisdiction. In the facts of this case both the Labour Courts have
the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.” (Para 5)
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 33917 of 2011)
NANDRAM …………APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S GARWARE POLYSTER LTD. ………RESPONDENT
J U D G M E
N T: KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was employed by the
respondent initially as Boiler Attendant in the year 1983 in the Company in
Aurangabad. Thereafter he was promoted as Junior Supervisor in the year 1987
and worked in the Aurangabad plant only. In the year 1995, he was again
promoted as Senior Supervisor and continued in Aurangabad. However, by
proceedings dated 21.10.2000, the appellant was transferred to Silvasa in
Gujarat. By another order dated 20.12.2001 he was transferred from Silvasa to
Pondicherry. While so, by proceeding dated 12.04.2005, appellant was terminated
from service w.e.f. 15.04.2005 on account of closure of the establishment at Pondicherry. It is not
in dispute that the registered office of the Company is in Aurangabad and the
decision to close the establishment at Pondicherry was taken by the Company at
Aurangabad.
3. Aggrieved by the termination,
appellant moved the Labour Court at Aurangabad in complaint ULP No.56 of 2005.
Despite the objection taken by the respondent that the Labour Court lacked
jurisdiction, the Court held in favour of the complainant.
4. Aggrieved, the respondent-Company
took up the matter before the Industrial Court at Aurangabad in revision. The
Industrial Court at Aurangabad vide order dated 04.07.2009 set aside the order
passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the complaint of the appellant holding
that the Labour Court at Aurangabad did not have territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint of the appellant, since the termination took place at
Pondicherry. The appellant moved the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at
Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 4968 of 2009. The High Court by judgment dated
07.06.2011 affirmed the view taken by the Industrial Court and held that the
situs of employment of the appellant
being Pondicherry, the Labour Court at Aurangabad did not have territorial jurisdiction
to go into the complaint filed by the appellant. Thus aggrieved, the appellant
is before this Court.
5. Though, the learned counsel on both
sides had addressed in detail on several issues, we do not think it necessary
to go into all those aspects mainly because in our view they are only academic.
In the background of the factual matrix, the undisputed position is that the
appellant was employed by the Company in Aurangabad, he was only transferred to
Pondicherry, the decision to close down the unit at Pondicherry was taken by
the Company at Aurangabad and consequent upon that decision only the appellant
was terminated. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action
at all in Aurangabad. The decision to terminate the appellant having been taken
at Aurangabad necessarily part of the
cause of action has arisen at Aurangabad. We have no quarrel that Labour Court,
Pondicherry is within its jurisdiction to consider the case of the appellant,
since he has been terminated while he was working at Pondicherry. But that does
not mean that Labour Court in Aurangabad within whose jurisdiction the
Management is situated and where the Management has taken the decision to close
down the unit at Pondicherry and pursuant to which the appellant was terminated
from service also does not have the jurisdiction. In the facts of this case
both the Labour Courts have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Hence,
the Labour Court at Aurangabad is well within its jurisdiction to consider the complaint
filed by the appellant. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the High
Court and the Industrial Court at Aurangabad and restore the order passed by
the Labour Court, Aurangabad though for different reasons.
6. The Labour Court shall consider the
complaint on merits and pass final orders within six months from today. The
parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 08.03.2016.
7. It is made clear that all other
contentions regarding the jurisdiction on other aspects in terms of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 are left open since such questions do not arise in the factual
matrix of the present case.
8. The appeal is allowed to the above
extent with no order as to costs.
.................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
....................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment