JUDGMENT

Mr Alok Aradhe, J. - This is an intra court appeal arising out of order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and the award dated 14.02.2014 passed by the labour court has been affirmed.

2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal in nut shell are that respondent was appointed on 02.05.2005 on a consolidated pay of Rs.8,000/- per month for a period of one year. Thereafter, she was appointed as Junior Executive as well with effect from 01.05.2006.

The parties had entered into a contract dated 18.05.2006. Clause 4 of the aforesaid contract provides that services of the appellant could be terminated by the respondent either by giving two months notice or by paying two months salary in lieu thereof. In accordance with Clause 4 of the aforesaid contract, by an order dated 04.03.2011 the services of the appellant were terminated by giving her two months salary.

3. The appellant thereupon raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the labour court. The labour court by an order dated 14.02.2014 interalia held that the appellant is a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court further held that the appellant was unable to prove that her services had been terminated in an illegal manner or the order of termination of her services dated 04.03.2011 is illegal or is ab initio void. It was further held that under the terms of the contract, the appellant had agreed in case of dispute between the parties, the Court at Mumbai shall have jurisdiction, accordingly, the labour court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. The reference was answered in the negative.

4. The appellant challenged the award dated 14.02.2014 passed by the labour court in a writ petition. Learned Single Judge by an order dated 07.03.2018 upheld the award dated 14.02.2014 passed by the labour court and dismissed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal arises for our consideration.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the labour court ought to have appreciated that it had jurisdiction to deal with the reference as the appellant was posted at Bengaluru and was rendering her services in Bengaluru. It is further submitted that order of termination dated 04.03.2011 was not preceded by an inquiry and therefore, the order of termination of service of the appellant was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in M/s Patel Roadways limited , Bombay v. M/s. Prasad Trading Company reported in AIR 1992 SC 1514.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides.

8. It is trite law that when two Courts have jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of the dispute, it is open for the parties to choose a forum and to confer jurisdiction on a particular court by consent. (See; Hakam Singh v. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd. , (1971) 3 SCR 314 ).

9. In the instant case, the principle place of business of respondent is Mumbai and the appellant was employed at Bengaluru. Thus, the Courts at Mumbai as well as Bengaluru had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute, however, under clause 18 of the contract of appointment dated 18.05.2006, the parties agreed to confer the jurisdiction on the Court at Mumbai. Therefore, the labour court at Bengaluru had no jurisdiction to deal with the reference.

10. It is pertinent to note that the labour court had framed an issu