The situs of employment is an important factor which determines the jurisdiction. The cause of action is to be determined by applying the principle as enumerated in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court within whose jurisdiction part of cause of action has arisen also has the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India emanates from the Award dated 04.07.2009 (‘impugned Award’) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. V, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D. No. 537/2008. The learned Labour Court vide the impugned Award dated 04.07.2009 held that since the situs of the petitioner’s employment was in Vishakhapatnam at the time of his termination, Government of NCT of Delhi is not the ‘appropriate government? to make reference under Section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (‘ID Act’).

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT MATTER

2. The petitioner workman was appointed as a Clerk by the Respondent Company and was posted at Rishikesh, Uttarakhand. After the passage of one year from his initial appointment, he was transferred to Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand wherein he dispensed his duties for a period of 4 years. In the year 1982, he was again transferred to Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. While he was working at the Vishakhapatnam office, on 09.07.1985, the petitioner was sent to Delhi for the purpose of receiving training in company accounts, and he was provided with an advance of Rs.2,000/- as Travelling Allowance and Dearness Allowance.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that he stayed in Delhi for four days and met General Manager (HQ) and other higher officials of the Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar, Executive Director of the Respondent Company told him verbally that his services are not required anymore. Thereafter he met Mr. Daya Prakash, Chairman who assured him that the posting order will be issued to him by the end of October, 1985. Hence he returned back to his native place.

4. The Petitioner was served with a letter of termination dated 03.09.1985 issued from the headquarter situated at Delhi. Vide this letter of termination, petitioner’s service was terminated w.e.f 15.07.1985. Relevant extract of the letter of Termination dated 03.09.1985 is reproduced below:

“You were required to report for duty at head office Delhi on or before 15th July 1985, vide letter dated 9th July 1985, duly received by you at our Vishakhapatnam site. You have, however, not joined Head Office Delhi by due date. Having remained unauthorisedly absent for more than eight (8) continuous days, you have lost the lien on the job under Clause 14 (XI) of our standing orders. Your name has therefore been struck off from the rolls of the company with effect from 15th July 1985. You are, therefore, requested to get your accounts finally settled on any working day at the earliest

(Suresh Kumar)

Executive Director (HQrs)”

5. Aggrieved by the afore-said letter of termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was later referred by the Delhi Administration to the Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication with the following terms of reference:

“Whether the termination of services of Shri Nawal Kishore Garg is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

6. The petitioner filed his statement of claim before the learned Labour Court wherein he challenged the termination letter dated 03.09.1985. It was alleged by the petitioner that the termination letter was issued in contravention of Section 25-D, G and N of the ID Act and against the principles of natural Justice. The Respondent vide its written statement contested the claims made by petitioner, taking preliminary objection that Delhi Administration has no territorial jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the learned Labour Court for adjudication.

7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues on 04.09.1993:

“(i) Whether the workman is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act?

(ii) As in terms of reference?”

8. Subsequently, based on the application of the Respondent, learned Labour Court framed the following additional issue:

“(i) Whether the learned