Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARSIMHA REDDY
Novapan Industries Limited, Patancheru - Appellant
Versus
S.Krishna Murthy - Respondent
Decided On : 01-24-03
Industrial Disputes act – Section 2-A 10 14 15 – industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 – Rule 24 – CPC – Order XIV – Territorial Jurisdiction – Writ Petition – This writ petition is directed against the orders of the Labour Court-II, in I. D. – The Management is the petitioner herein – The objection was that the workman stood I transferred to Chennai, was dismissed from service by the Sales Manager at Chennai and the Labour Court at Hyderabad did not have the jurisdiction – The 2nd objection was as to the extent of conferment of the power on the labour Court under G. O. Ms.– Held, Through this g. O. , various powers under different provisions of the Act are conferred on the labour Courts in the State of Andhra Pradesh, duly delineating the territorial jurisdiction of the respective Labour Courts – The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while enlisting matters which an be decided by the respective Labour Courts, no reference is made to the matters initiated under Section 2-A (2) of the Act insofar as the Labour Court I s concerned where the workman had filed the ID – The objection raised on behalf of the management in this regard cannot be sustained – It needs to be noted that g. O. Ms. stipulates the kind of proceedings that can be adjudicated by the respective Labour Courts – In respect of no other Labour Court there is any reference to the proceedings under Section 2-A (2) of the Act under the G. O. – If the contention of the learned counsel for the management is to be accepted, no proceedings initiated under Section 2-A (2) can be entertained by any Labour Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh – Such a result would be rather disastrous – It is not in dispute that the registered office of the management is at Hyderabad – For the purpose of deciding the territorial jurisdiction in cases where Companies figure as respondents, one of the enquiry should be as to where the registered office of the company is located – That being the situation, it cannot be - said that the Labour Court at Hyderabad did not have the territorial jurisdiction – It may be that the Labour Court at Chennai may also have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute – The fact by itself does not render the Labour court at Hyderabad lacking such jurisdiction – Viewed from any angle, the order of the Labour Court cannot be found fault with – Writ Petition Dismissed
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the orders of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court ) dated November 13, 2002 in I. D. No. 85 of 1999. The Management is the petitioner herein. The impugned order came to be passed under the following facts and circumstances.
( 2 ) THE 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as the workman ) was appointed as a Trainee Security Guard of the petitioner, which is an industrial company, (hereinafter referred to as the Management ), through orders dated 1/04/1982. His services were confirmed on 9/02/1985. The relationship between the workman and the management were not cordial. Right from regularisation of services, there were disputes of one kind or the other. The workman was active in the trade union relatable to the management. In the year 1995, the workman intended to contest for the post of vice-president of the Novapan Mazdoor sangh. The Management filed OS No. 228/95 and obtained an interim injunction against the workman from contesting the said office. This fact is referred only to indicate the absence of normal relation between the workman and the management.
( 3 ) THROUGH orders dated 13/07/1998, the workman was promoted as Security inspector and was transferred to Sales Office of the Management at Chennai. The workman submitted a representation dated 3/08/1998 to the Management stating that he may be continued at Hyderabad only, even at the cost of denying promotion to him. The request was turned down on the same day and he was directed to report at Chennai. On the ground that he did not report to duty at Chennai, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and ultimately, through orders dated 3/10/1998, the workman was dismissed from service.
( 4 ) CHALLENGING the order of dismissal, the workman raised the Industrial Dispute by filing id No. 85/99 on the file of the Labour Court, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes act (for short the Act ), seeking the relief of reinstatement into service with full back wages.
( 5 ) THE Management filed counter to the claim of the workman. The Management raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the ID. The objection was as to the territorial jurisdiction. It was contended that since the workman was transferred to Chennai and he was dismissed from service by an officer of the Management at Chennai, the only Forum where the workman can seek redressal is the one at chennai and the Labour Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Another objection was as to the non-joinder of the officer, who passed the order of dismissal. The management requested the Labour Court to decide the preliminary objections before proceeding to decide the main case. The management has also refuted the various allegations contained in the petition. The labour Court, through its order dated november 13, 2002, took the view that unless evidence is recorded on various disputed questions of fact, which incidentally touch the question of territorial jurisdiction also, it is not possible or feasible to decide" the preliminary issues and accordingly direct the parties to proceed with the trial of the case. Hence, the writ petition.
( 6 ) IT is the contention of the Management that the workman was an employee of their branch office at Chennai and the cause of action to the workman can be said to have arisen only at Chennai. It is on this premise that they plead absence of territorial jurisdiction in the Labour i Court to entertain the ID.
( 7 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed in this writ petition by the workman, it is stated that he has been transferred to Chennai only as a measure of victimisation. It is also stated that the Sales manager at Chennai has no power or jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the workman. It is further submitted that his employer is the petitioner-Management and a workman has every right to rais
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
