Point of Law: Whenever any proceedings are filed before any Authority or Court and if one of party were to raise an objection as regards pecuniary jurisdiction or territorial jurisdiction, said Court could decide same as preliminary issue.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Order/Award dated 06-08-2011 in I.D. Application (LCM) No.15/1997 on the file of Labour Court, Mangalore i.e. Annexure-A in rejecting the said ID Application on the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction and further also be pleased to quash the Order dated 17.2.2011 passed on I.A. dated 08-02-2010/09-02-2010 filed by the Respondent in the said ID Application i.e., Annexure-B;

b. For such other and further relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant under the circumstance of the case including the cost of this Writ Petition.

2. The dispute raised by the petitioner by filing a claim petition in I.D. No.15/1997 before the Labour Court, Mangalore came to be dismissed on a finding on the preliminary issue that it did not have territorial jurisdiction. It is the said order which is under challenge in the present petition.

3. Sri.Sarat Chandra Bijai, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that,

3.1. The petitioner was engaged as a ‘Medical Representative’ of respondent-employer and was stationed in Shimoga. He refers to the dismissal order dated 8.02.1997 to state that even as per the said letter the employer has stated that the operation of the Shimoga headquarters are not viable and for that reason he was permitted to take a transfer to Udupi at PSR headquarters, remain in Shimogga as Sales Representative at Generic division for Karnataka or take a transfer to Madras as Sales Representative of general division. Subsequently he was asked to report at Bangalore Depot which was also not adhered to and in that background, he was transferred to New Delhi headquarters.

3.2. When the petitioner did not even report at New Delhi headquarters, the aforesaid letter dated 8.02.1997 came to be issued terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that he had abandoned his services. Thus, he submits this letter issued by the employer from New Delhi having been received by the petitioner at Shimoga, the last employment of the workman being at Shimoga, the labour Court in Karnataka having jurisdiction over Shimoga would have jurisdiction on the matter and it was rightly filed before the said Court.

3.3. The labour court without appreciating this aspect taking into consideration that the workman had been transferred to New Delhi and that the agreement of employment stated that the disputes have to be resolved within the jurisdiction of New Delhi, held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter, which he submits is not proper and correct and is required to be set-aside.

4. Sri.Joshua H.Samuel, learned counsel for the respondent employer would submit that,

4.1. The last transfer having occurred and the workman being directed to report to New Delhi, it would be only the courts at New Delhi would have jurisdiction and not the labour Court having jurisdiction over Shimoga.

4.2. A reference made by the appropriate government stand on a different footing than a claim petition filed by a workman inasmuch as if a reference is made by the appropriate government, the appropriate government would have applied its mind as regards the jurisdiction and any of the parties to the reference could have no grievance over the reference in terms of the jurisdiction. When a dispute is filed under Section 10(4-A) of the Karnataka Amendment to the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, it is one of the parties, more particularly workman having chosen the Forum, the labour Court where proceedings have filed would have the jurisdiction decide the aspect of territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and in this regard learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special leave Petition No.12511/2016 [V.G.Jagdishan -v- M/s Indofos Industries Limited] , more particularly para 6.5 thereof which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

“6.5. In the case of D.P.Maheshwa