Labour Laws – Territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court – Retrenchment / termination of appellant-workman – The workman was employed as a driver at Ghaziabad office – He was working at Ghaziabad – His services were retrenched at Ghaziabad – All throughout during the employment, the workman stayed and worked at Ghaziabad – After retrenchment/termination, the workman shifted to Delhi from where he served a demand notice at Head Office of the Management situated at Delhi – Whether the Labour Court at Delhi had jurisdiction to try the complaint/case of appellantworkman – Held: Merely because appellant-workman after termination/ retrenchment shifted to Delhi and sent a demand notice from Delhi and the Head Office of the Management was at Delhi, it cannot be said that a part cause of action had arisen at Delhi – Considering the facts that the workman was employed at Ghaziabad; was working at Ghaziabad and his services were terminated at Ghaziabad, the facts being undisputed, only the Ghaziabad Labour Court would have territorial jurisdiction to decide the case. Labour Laws – Issue touching territorial jurisdiction of the Labour court – Procedure and manner of adjudication – Held: When the issue touches the question of territorial jurisdiction, as far as possible the same shall have to be decided first as preliminary issue – In the present case, the Labour Court did not commit any error in deciding the issue with respect to the territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in the first instance.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It is not much in dispute that the workman was employed as a driver at Ghaziabad office. He was working at Ghaziabad. His services were retrenched at Ghaziabad. All throughout during the employment, the workman stayed and worked at Ghaziabad. Only after the retrenchment/termination the workman shifted to Delhi from where he served a demand notice at Head Office of the Management situated at Delhi. Merely because the workman after termination/retrenchment shifted to Delhi and sent a demand notice from Delhi and the Head Office of the Management was at Delhi, it cannot be said that a part cause of action has arisen at Delhi. Considering the facts that the workman was employed at Ghaziabad; was working at Ghaziabad and his services were terminated at Ghaziabad, the facts being undisputed, only the Ghaziabad Court would have territorial jurisdiction to decide the case. [Para 6.1][65-D-F] Eastern Coalfields Ltd.and Ors. v. Kalyan Banerjee (2008) 3 SCC 456 – relied on.
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. v. Ande Lingaiah and Anr (2000) 10 SCC 294; Bikash Bhushan Ghosh and Ors. v. Novartis IndiaLtd. and Anr (2007) 5 SCC 591 : [2007] 5 SCR 985; and Nandram v. Garware Polyster Limited (2016) 6 SCC 290 : [2016] 2 SCR 672 and D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors.(1983) 4 SCC 293 : [1983] 3 SCR 949 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.