JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:

"5(a) Be pleased to issue writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the order below Exh. 8 dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 19 of 2021 (Annexure-A) and the order of reference dated 30.03.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2(Annexure-B);"

2. Learned advocate Mr. Varun Patel has submitted that the Labour Court has fallen in error in passing the impugned order below Exh. 8 dated 31.01.2022 in Reference (LCR) No. 19 of 2021 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner raising preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Rajkot. He has submitted that the respondent No. 1 was admittedly working at Bhuj and she was dismissed from Bhuj, where she was last placed after her appointment at Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited, Bhuj Branch and hence, the Labour Court, Rajkot will not have any jurisdiction to examine the validity of the orders passed by the petitioner-Bank.

2.1. It is submitted that the application is merely rejected on the premise that since the head office of the petitioner-Bank is situated at Rajkot, the Labour Court, Rajkot will have jurisdiction to examine the dispute. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Padmanabham and Ors. v. Industrial Tribunal-II and Ors., 2009 (2) ALT 65 and he has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. v. Kalyan Banerjee, (2008) 3 S.C.C. 456. Learned advocate, while referring to the provision of Section 11(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) has submitted that in fact the Labour Court, Rajkot will have no jurisdiction of examining the departmental proceedings since the respondent No. 1 was dismissed, when she was at Bhuj and appropriate Labour Court would be at Bhuj. Thus, he has submitted that even the Conciliation officer was at fault in referring the dispute to the Labour Court, Rajkot instead of Labour Court at Bhuj and hence, the impugned order may be set aside.

3. It is not disputed and in fact admitted in the writ petition that the respondent No. 1 is an employee of the petitioner-Bank, which is a Multi-State Co-operative Bank. When the respondent No. 1 was serving at Bhuj Branch, she was issued a show-cause notice dated 05.10.2019 by the petitioner-Bank having its head office at Rajkot. After holding the departmental proceedings, dismissal order is also passed by the petitioner-Bank having its head office at Rajkot. Thus, right from the issuance of show-cause notice dated 05.10.2019 till the respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the petitioner-Bank vide order dated 04.01.2021, all the proceedings, including passing of the dismissal order, undertaken and passed by the head office of the petitioner-Bank at Rajkot.

4. Keeping in mind, the aforesaid undisputed fact, the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Padmanabham and Ors. (supra), upon which the reliance is placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, would not apply in the present case since the show-cause notice as well as the final dismissal order has been passed by the petitioner-Bank, having its head office at Rajkot.

5. Similarly, in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has examined the case of jurisdiction of company having its head office at Calcutta, where the employee was terminated at the place of Jharkhand. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the proceedings, show-cause notice and dismissal order issued from Rajkot is undertaken by the head office of the petitioner-Bank.

6. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nandram v. Garware Polyster Limited, 2016 (6) S.C.C. 290. The Ape