Delve into the depths of a jurisdictional dispute as the Labour Court’s thorough legal analysis unfolds. In a recent case, the court navigated complex jurisdictional waters, emphasizing the pivotal role of territorial jurisdiction. The court’s detailed examination and reasoning provide valuable insights into the nuances of the law. Stay tuned for a breakdown of the court’s analysis in this intriguing case!
Facts
- The Labour Court, Delhi was approached by the workman, who was working at Ghaziabad but had shifted to Delhi after his termination
- Management raised a jurisdictional objection stating that the Labour Court, Delhi had no jurisdiction as the workman was appointed, working, and terminated at Ghaziabad
- The workman argued that as he had sent a demand notice to the head office in Delhi, the cause of action arose in Delhi giving territorial jurisdiction to the Labour Court, Delhi
- The Labour Commissioner, Delhi proceeded with the conciliation proceedings despite the objection raised by the Management
- The workman appealed the decision of the Labour Court
- Labour Court at Delhi held no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case.
- High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal upheld the decision that Labour Court at Ghaziabad has jurisdiction to try the case.
- Workman filed a writ petition before Single Judge of the High Court against Labour Court’s decision.
- Labour Court emphasized that the cause of action arising in Ghaziabad gives jurisdiction to the Court there.
- Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court affirmed that Labour Court in Delhi lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Arguments
- The appellant, represented by Ms. V. Mohana, argues that the Labour Court should not have given reliance on the D.P. Maheshwari case.
- Cases like Nandram Vs. Garware Polyster Limited, Bikash Bhushan Ghosh Vs. Novartis India Ltd., and Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Vs. Ande Lingaiah are cited in support.
- The Labour Court had initially decided the issue of territorial jurisdiction in the case, holding that it lacked jurisdiction.
- Ms. V. Mohana argues that since part of the cause of action arose in Delhi where the demand notice was sent and served, the Labour Court in Delhi should have jurisdiction in this case.
- Labour Court should have given its decision on all issues in the case
- Reliance placed on the decision in the case of D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and Ors.; (1983) 4 SCC 293
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Analysis
- The court addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction between Labour Court, Delhi and Labour Court, Ghaziabad in a case where the workman was employed, worked, and had his services terminated in Ghaziabad.
- The court referred to a previous case where it was found that part of the cause of action had arisen at multiple places, leading to both Labour Courts having jurisdiction.
- The decision of the court in Nandram’s case was also mentioned but found to be not applicable to the present case.
- Service of notice to respondent no.1 was found incomplete with postal remarks indicating non-delivery.
- Based on undisputed facts that the workman’s employment, work, and termination all occurred in Ghaziabad, the Ghaziabad Court was deemed to have territorial jurisdiction.
- Previous findings established that the entire cause of action, including employment and termination, occurred in Ghaziabad, granting jurisdiction to the local court.
- The court also mentioned the Bikash Bhushan Ghosh case, stating it was not applicable to the current case, where the workman’s employment and termination were solely in Ghaziabad.
- The Calcutta High Court’s lack of jurisdiction due to the workman’s service location in Jharkhand was also highlighted.
- In conclusion, it was reiterated that no part cause of action arose in Delhi, solidifying Ghaziabad’s jurisdiction in the case.
- The dispute in the appeal was narrowed down to the specific facts of the workman’s employment and termination location in Ghaziabad.
- The workman in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. was employed in Mugma area in the district of Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
- The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra in light of the decision of this Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Kalyan Banerjee (2008) 3 SCC 456.
- The decision in question was made only on a preliminary issue and should have dealt with all issues at the same time.
- The referenced decision is not applicable to the current case as the facts differ.
- The Labour Court was justified in addressing the territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in this instance.
- The previous decision did not establish a strict rule that all issues, including jurisdiction, must be addressed simultaneously.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Decision
- The present Appeal failed and deserves to be dismissed
- No order as to costs in the circumstances of the case
- It is essential to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue
- The Appeal has been dismissed accordingly
Case Title: V G JAGDISHAN Vs. M/S. INDFOS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED (2022 INSC 434)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002976-002976 / 2022
