ORDER (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J.)

The writ petitions are listed before us by way of reference by a learned single Judge of this Court to answer the following questions:

"1. Whether the Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction, the Head Office of a company is situated, will also have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the 1.0., apart from the Court where cause of action has arisen, irrespective of whether any part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court where the Head Office is located?

2. Whether the provisions of Section 20 C.P.C. are applicable to the IDs filed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

3. Whether the Court within whose jurisdiction the Branch Office of a company is located and where the cause of action has arisen, has to be taken as the relevant place for the purpose of raising an Industrial Dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?"

2. The above questions are said to have arisen in view of the two conflicting decisions of this Court in Siemens Limited v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court' and Novapan Industries Limited v. S.Krishna Murthy. It is relevant to notice the views expressed in the said judgments. In Siemens Limited, a learned single Judge of this Court, relying upon a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Paritosh Kumar Pal v. State of Bihar held that the situs of employment would be of paramount consideration for raising the industrial dispute. Whereas, another learned single Judge in Novapan Industries Limited, had taken a different view that the location of the Head Office would determine the jurisdiction.

3. The facts relevant and necessary for answering the reference may be stated thus:

The petitioners were working with the respondent-Mis Sirpur Paper Mills Limited at Sirpur, Kagaznagar, and they were dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct. Aggrieved by the dismissal, they have raised industrial disputes, vide I.D.Nos.109 and 110 of 2002, which were re-numbered as I.D.Nos.137 and 138 of 2004 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad.

The Labour Court, Hyderabad, upon considering the rival contentions, held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the IDs and accordingly refused to pass any award.

4. We have heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent management. Both the counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petitions itself on merits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitionersworkmen contended that the order of dismissal was passed by the respondent company at Sirpur Kagaznagar, and a copy of it was marked to the Head Office at Hyderabad, along with other relevant material, therefore the workmen have raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court at Hyderabad as the Head Office of the company is situated in Hyderabad. Learned counsel further contended that when once the Tribunal has entertained IDs without raising the preliminary issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction and ultimately held that the domestic enquiry is valid, it ought not to have dismissed IDs on mere technicalities. He also contended that no prejudice would be caused to the management if the Tribunal at Hyderabad decides the matter on merits.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners workmen relied upon the decision of this Court in Novopan Industries Limited (2 supra) in support of the contention that the place where head office is situated, would be relevant for determination of jurisdiction, on the ground that administrative instructions are given by the Head Office to its subsidiary companies.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - management contended that since the petitioners reside at Sirpur-Kagaznagar, Godavarikhani, and the charges were framed, domestic enquiry held and the termination orders emanated at Kagaznagar, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal at Godavarikhani, would have the jurisdiction to entertain 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document