Labour/Industrial Courts in Maharashtra have jurisdiction to hear complaints of unfair labour practice if relevant decisions are made within Maharashtra, despite employee postings outside the State.

JUDGMENT :

M. S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

PRELIMINARIES

2. Appeal No. 585 of 2009 was admitted, and a Rule has been issued in the related Petitions. In any case, with the agreement of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, all these matters were taken up for final hearing, and the learned counsel for the parties were thoroughly heard.

3. Appeal No.585 of 2009 pertains to the assignment of a Division Bench. The connected Writ Petitions pertain to the assignment of the learned Single Judge. However, since the issue involved was common, the Writ Petitions were directed by an Administrative Order to be placed before the Bench hearing Appeal No.585 of 2009. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the parties agree that this Bench should address all these matters for final disposal.

4. These matters concern the determination of territorial jurisdiction of Labour/Industrial Courts in Maharashtra to entertain complaints of unfair labour practices alleged to be perpetrated by employers who have their registered/ head / administrative offices within the State of Maharashtra upon the employees posted at and transferred to place/s outside the State of Maharashtra in the context of the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 [“MRTU Act”].

5. The employees/Unions contend that their employment was controlled from their registered/head/administrative offices within the State of Maharashtra [mainly Mumbai], where decisions regarding their transfer and/or termination, which constitute unfair labour practices, were made. Even their appointment, transfer, or termination letters were issued/dispatched from the offices within the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, a substantial part of the cause of action arose in Maharashtra, and the Labour/Industrial Courts in Maharashtra had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.

6. The employees/Unions contend that the contrary view of the Division Bench of this Court in GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Abhay Raj Jain and Ors., 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 756, that the situs of the employee is the sole governing factor to determine territorial jurisdiction in such matters under the MRTU Act, stands expressly, or in any event impliedly overruled by at least two subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Nandram Vs. Garware Polyester Limited, (2016) 6 SCC 290, and Rakesh Kumar Verma Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 752

7. The employers maintain that the cause of action in such matters arises exclusively at the employee's situs because the effect of the transfer or termination befalls the employee there. Therefore, if the place where the employee was posted and the place to which he/she was transferred, or received the termination letter, are both outside Maharashtra, no part of the cause of action arises in Maharashtra, thereby excluding any territorial jurisdiction of the Labour/industrial Courts within Maharashtra. They stressed that the provisions of the MRTU Act apply only in the State of Maharashtra and have no extra-territorial application.

8. The employers maintain that the Division Bench’s view in GlaxoSmithKline, emphasizing the situs of the employee, continues to represent the correct lega