NANDRAM Vs. M/S GARWARE POLYSTER LTD.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 1409 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2016
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