Supreme court Judgment on territorial jurisdiction for filing case in Labour court

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. 
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
Dated;FEBRUARY 16, 2016
Citation:(2016) 6 SCC290



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

Print Page