V G JAGDISHAN versus M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED on 19 April 2022

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment andorder dated 06.07.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhiin Letters Patent Appeal No. 412/2015, by which the High Court hasdismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – workmanand it is held that the Labour Court at Delhi would have no jurisdiction totry the case and that the Labour Court at Ghaziabad would havejurisdiction to try the complaint/case, the workman has preferred thepresent appeal.

3. The dispute in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass.The appellant herein – workman was working as a driver at Ghaziabad.He was employed at Ghaziabad and was also working at Ghaziabad.His services were terminated at Ghaziabad. Subsequent to his termination,the workman shifted to Delhi. He sent a demand notice challenging histermination to the head office at Delhi. Thereafter, he filed a claim beforethe Conciliation Officer at Delhi. Before the Labour Court, Delhi, theManagement – respondent herein raised the objection aboutmaintainability of proceedings at Delhi. It was also pointed out that theworkman had already raised the same dispute before the Deputy LabourCommissioner, Ghaziabad. The Labour Commissioner, Delhi proceededfurther with the complaint/conciliation proceedings. The dispute wasreferred to the Labour Court, Delhi. Before the Labour Court, respondent– management raised a preliminary objection that the Labour Court,Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction since the workman was appointed atGhaziabad; he was working in the factory of management – respondentherein at Ghaziabad and his services were also retrenched at Ghaziabad.It was the case on behalf of the workman that as the demand noticewas served at Head Office at Delhi, it can be said that the dispute hasarisen giving rise to substantial cause of action at Delhi. Therefore, itwas the case on behalf of the workman that the Labour Court at Delhihas territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

3.1 The Labour Court vide award dated 18.04.2006 held thepreliminary issue in favour of the management and held that the LabourCourt at Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case/complaint/reference. The Labour Court held that merely because the Corporate BC

DE

F

G

H

AOffice of the management was at Delhi the same will not vest the LabourCourt, Delhi with territorial jurisdiction. The Labour Court held that asthe cause of action has arisen at Ghaziabad, the Court at Ghaziabadalone had the jurisdiction to try the case.

3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award/order passedBby the Labour Court holding that the Labour Court, Delhi has no territorialjurisdiction to try the case, the workman preferred the writ petition beforethe learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judgedismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 09.04.2015. The LettersPatent Appeal (LPA) against the order passed by the learned SingleJudge has been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court byCthe impugned judgment and order. Hence, the workman has preferredthe present appeal.

4. Ms. V. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the appellant herein – workman has vehemently submitted that in thepresent case it cannot be said that there is a total lack of jurisdiction inDthe Labour Court, Delhi. It is submitted that as the Head Office, wherethe demand notice was sent was at Delhi and the demand notice wasserved from Delhi where the workman was staying after the termination,it can be said that a part cause of action has arisen in Delhi. It is submittedthat when a part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi, the Court atEDelhi would have territorial jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the decisionsof this Court in the cases of Nandram Vs. Garware Polyster Limited;(2016) 6 SCC 290, Bikash Bhushan Ghosh and Ors. Vs. NovartisIndia Ltd. and Anr; (2007) 5 SCC 591 and Singareni CollieriesCo. Ltd. Vs. Ande Lingaiah and Anr; (2000) 10 SCC 294.

F4.1 It is further submitted by Ms. V. Mohana, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the present case,the Labour Court had decided the preliminary issue and held that theLabour Court, Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case. It issubmitted that Labour Court ought to have given its decision on all issues.Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of D.P.GMaheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and Ors.; (1983) 4 SCC293. It is submitted that as held by this honourable Court, tribunals shoulddispose of all the issues, whether preliminary or otherwise, at the sametime.

4.2 Making the above submissions and relying upon above decisionsHof this Court, it is prayed to quash and set aside the order(s) passed by the Labour Court, learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of theHigh Court and direct the Labour Court, Delhi to decide and dispose ofthe case at the earliest.

5. As per the office report, service is not complete on solerespondent No. 1 and as per the post tracking report, notice has notbeen delivered to respondent No. 1 with postal remarks as “Addresseeleft without instructions”. However, the present Special Leave Petition(SLP) is of the year 2016 and for the reasons hereinbelow, we see noreasons to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. We proceedfurther with the SLP ex-parte so far as sole respondent No. 1 isconcerned.

6. The question which is posed for the consideration of this Courtis, whether, the Labour Court, Delhi would have territorial jurisdiction todecide the case or the Labour Court, Ghaziabad would have territorialjurisdiction to decide the case.

6.1 From the findings recorded by the Labour Court, Delhi andthe learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, it isnot much in dispute that the workman was employed as a driver atGhaziabad office. He was working at the Ghaziabad. His services wereretrenched at Ghaziabad. All throughout during the employment, theworkman stayed and worked at Ghaziabad. Only after the retrenchment/termination the workman shifted to Delhi from where he served a demandnotice at Head Office of the Management situated at Delhi. Merelybecause the workman after termination/retrenchment shifted to Delhiand sent a demand notice from Delhi and the Head Office of theManagement was at Delhi, it cannot be said that a part cause of actionhas arisen at Delhi. Considering the facts that the workman was employedat Ghaziabad; was working at Ghaziabad and his services were terminatedat Ghaziabad, the facts being undisputed, only the Ghaziabad Court wouldhave territorial jurisdiction to decide the case. As such the issue involvedin the present case is no longer res integra in view of the decision of thisCourt in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. Vs. KalyanBanerjee; (2008) 3 SCC 456. In the case of Eastern CoalfieldsLtd. (supra) the workman was employed in Mugma area in the districtof Dhanbad, Jharkhand. His services were terminated at Mugma.However, the workman filed a writ petition before the Calcutta HighCourt. On a preliminary objection taken the Calcutta High Court heldthat since the workman was serving at Mugma area under the General AB

C

DE

F

G

H

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

AManager of the area which is the State of Jharkhand, the Calcutta HighCourt had no jurisdiction. Affirming the aforesaid decision, this Courtheld that the entire cause of action arose in Mugma area within theState of Jharkhand and only because the head office of the companywas situated in the State of West Bengal, the same by itself will notconfer any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court particularly whenBthe head office had nothing to do with the order of punishment passedagainst the workman. In the present case also, the workman wasemployed at Ghaziabad; he was working at Ghaziabad and his serviceswere also terminated at Ghaziabad by the office at Ghaziabad where hewas employed.C6.2 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of thisCourt in the case of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. (supra) is concerned,apart from the fact that the same is not applicable to the facts of thecase on hand, it is required to be noted that the order passed by thisCourt in the said case was a consent order and the order was passed inDexercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and thequestion of law was left open. Therefore, no reliance can have beenplaced on the said decision.

6.3 Now, as far as the decision of this Court in the case of BikashBhushan Ghosh (supra) is concerned, on facts, the said decision alsoEis not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. That was a casewhere it was specifically found that the part cause of action had arisenat both places. In the present case as observed, it cannot be said thatany part cause of action has arisen at Delhi.

6.4 Reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case ofFNandram (supra) is also of no assistance to the appellant. Again, onfacts, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.That was also a case where it was found that part cause of action hadarisen in both the places, namely, Pondicherry and Aurangabad.Therefore, it was found on facts that both, the Labour Courts atPondicherry and Aurangabad had the jurisdiction to deal with the matterGand therefore, the Labour Court at Aurangabad was well within itsjurisdiction to consider the complaint.

6.5 In the case of D.P. Maheshwari (supra) is pressed into serviceby learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in supportof the submission that the Labour Court ought not to have given theH

decision only on preliminary issue and ought to have disposed of all theissues, whether preliminary or otherwise at the same time. On facts thesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In theaforesaid decision no absolute proposition of law was laid down by thisCourt that even the issue touching the jurisdiction of the court cannot bedecided by the court as a preliminary issue and the court has to disposeof all the issues, whether preliminary or otherwise, at the same time.When the issue touches the question of territorial jurisdiction, as far aspossible the same shall have to be decided first as preliminary issue.Therefore, in the present case, the Labour Court did not commit anyerror in deciding the issue with respect to the territorial jurisdiction as apreliminary issue in the first instance.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and isaccordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, thereshall be no order as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H