R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.

Petitioner was appointed as an attender in the office of the respondent-company at Madras, where the respondent-company has its head office, on May 1, 1987. He was promoted as senior attender, and on such promotion, was transferred to the Kanpur branch office of the respondent-company with effect from January 7, 1995. He joined the Kanpur office on November 14, 1995. While he was working there, he was served with a show-cause notice, dated March 15, 1996, which show-cause notice was issued by the Chief Manger (HRD) of the company from Madras. The allegation against him was that he had made a false claim for Rs. 1855 which sum was the sum he claimed to have paid as school fees for his son S. Raunak, who was a student in the U.K.G. "A" Section of the D.A.V. School at Madras.

After holding an enquiry that was held on that charge the petitioner was served with an order of termination issued by the same Chief Manager, (HRD) from the Madras office. That order of termination is dated August 8, 1996. We must mention here that prior to that date, an order purporting to be an order of termination had been issued by the Deputy Manager (Marketing) from the Kanpur office. It was addressed to the Kanpur address of the petitioner. After the issuance of the order of August 8, 1996 the petitioner was served with a letter, dated August 24, 1996, by the Deputy Manager (Marketing) of the Kanpur office of the company, wherein it was stated that he had been instructed by the Chief Manager (HRD) to send the letter signed by the Chief Manager (HRD), but instead, the Deputy Manager, Kanpur, had made a mistake of sending the letter signed by himself along with that letter of August 24, 1996. The letter signed by the Chief Manager (HRD) from Madras was sent to the applicant's address at Madras, viz., No. 251, T.V.K. Nagar, Perambur, Madras.The facts set out above clearly show that the petitioner was employed at the head office at Madras, in the year 1987, had served with the respondent at Madras for eight years, that his son was studying in the School at Madras, and that he was transferred to Kanpur towards the end of 1995, that in respect of a claim made by him for reimbursement of the fee paid by him for his son's schooling at Madras, he was issued charge-sheet signed by the Chief Manager of the Company at Madras, and was ultimately dismissed by a letter of termination signed by the Chief Manager at Madras. The charge-sheet, as also the letter of termination was sent to the petitioner at his Madras address.

After the termination of employment in that manner, the petitioner sought to raise an industrial dispute. The Conciliation Officer initially declined to exercise the jurisdiction, but subsequently entertained the petition filed by the petitioner and sent a notice dated January 30, 1997 requiring the employer-respondent to appear before him on February 7, 1997 in connection with the dispute raised by the petitioner. Along with that notice, a copy of the claim petition that had been filed by the petitioner before the Conciliation Officer, viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Conciliation I, was also sent to the employer. The employer, in answer to that petition, by his letter of February 24, 1997, objected to the exercise of Jurisdiction by the Conciliation Officer on the ground that it is only the authorities in Kanpur who can initiate such conciliation, and that the authorities in the State of Tamil Nadu would have no jurisdiction at all. The earlier order of the Conciliation Officer which had upheld such a stand of the employer was also referred to and relied upon.

The employer thereafter rushed to this Court before the Conciliation Officer could even consider the objection that had been raised. The learned single Judge accepted the contention of the employer that the State of Tamil Nadu is not the appropriate Government, and that the Conciliation Officer, Madras has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition th