The jurisdiction issue under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be decided as a preliminary issue and can be adjudicated at the time of final disposal. Part of the cause of action arises at the place where the head office was located when the dispute was raised, and the shifting of the head office thereafter cannot oust the jurisdiction.

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Management against the order of dismissal of its application filed to decide the maintainability of the petition filed by the respondent under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as a preliminary point at the first instance before embarking upon the merits of the case.

2. The respondent herein is a workman under the petitioner and his initial appointment was made as a Technical Assistant in Dindigul Office, on 19.08.1983. Thereafter, he was transferred to Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, as a Technical Officer by an order dated 15.06.2009. Subsequently, on 17.08.2009, the respondent was transferred to EC Varanasi. Since the respondent did not join the duty, after issuing a charge memo, a domestic enquiry was conducted and thereafter he was dismissed from service by an order dated 21.07.2010. The respondent filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) Dindigul and a failure report of the Conciliation Officer was issued under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, on 30.11.2009. Since, the Conciliation failed, the respondent filed a petition under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking the relief to take the dispute for adjudication to set aside the domestic enquiry pending and pass awards of reinstating him with full back-wages, continuity of the service with other consequential benefits. In the said petition, the petitioner herein filed a counter statement and the matter is pending.

3. At that stage, an application has been filed in I.A.No.95 of 2012, questioning the maintainability of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said petition was dismissed by the Labour Court. Challenging the same only, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Management.

4. The case of the petitioner is that there is no Branch Office of the petitioner at Dindigul and therefore, there is no jurisdiction. Moreover, the respondent was transferred from Kurnool to Varanasi and the transfer order was passed in Nasik. The respondent did not join in the transferred place. Therefore, the charge memo was issued. On the basis of the enquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service. Hence, the cause of action does not arise within the jurisdiction of Dindigul and if at all, it is only at Kurnool or Nasik. Even the Conciliation Officer as well as the Labour Court do not have jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. The petitioner relied upon various judgments with regard to the jurisdiction, which are as follows:

a) 2009 (1) LLN 59 (S. Padmanabham and Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad and others)

b) 2002(II) LLJ 691 (Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Limited, Automotive Products Division Madras and Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Madras and Another.

c) 2010 (2) TLNJ 626[Civil] (R.M. Kannappan (deceased) and others vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour Madurai and others).

5. On the other hand, the respondent who appeared in person, would submit that on the date of the complaint dated 28.07.2010, the petitioner's original office had been functioning at Dindigul and even today, the petitioner is having the properties to an extent of ten acres of lands for research purpose at Komabi village, Pannaipatti Branch Post Office. The initial appointment as well as the termination order was received at Dindigul and therefore, the Labour Court has got jurisdiction. The Industrial Dispute can be raised at the place where the order of termination was received or in the place of initial appointment; the Conciliation Officer has given the findings on the jurisdictional issue. In those circumstances, the Labour Court has got jurisdiction. With delay, the Miscellaneous petition has been filed to stop the proceedings.

6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent who appeared in person.

7. The Industrial Dispute was raised by the respondent as