The Labour Court at Chandigarh has jurisdiction to adjudicate the termination claim as the decision to terminate was made at the head office in Chandigarh, establishing part of the cause of action there.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Deepak Sibal, J.

The present intra-Court appeal arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 14.02.2024 through which respondent No.1's writ petition, filed by him to challenge therein order dated 25.09.2017, passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, UT, Chandigarh (for short-the Conciliation Officer) has been allowed.

2. The facts, in brief, which are required to be noticed for adjudicating upon the instant appeal are that through appointment letter dated 31.01.1985, respondent No.1 was appointed by the appellant company in its head office at Chandigarh as a Trainee (General Clerk) and on 31.01.1988 his services were confirmed as Personal/Time Office Assistant. On 31.07.1996 but w.e.f. 01.07.1996 respondent No.1 was promoted to the post of Assistant Officer (Personnel). In the year 2000 he earned another promotion to the post of Personnel Officer and in the year 2005 as Executive (Personnel and IR). In the year 2011 respondent No.1 was further promoted as Assistant Manager (Personnel & IR).

3. In the year 2015 respondent No.1 was transferred from the head office of the appellant at Chandigarh to its Tamil Nadu office at Tirupur and while he was serving at Tirupur, through order dated 21.04.2017, his services were dispensed with.

4. On the ground that his services had been terminated by the appellant in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 respondent No.1 served a demand notice at Chandigarh. During conciliation proceedings which ensued before the Conciliation Officer question with regard to territorial jurisdiction was raised by the appellant. Through letter dated 15.09.2017 addressed by the Conciliation Officer to respondent No.1 it was stated that the conciliation proceedings had not resulted in any amicable settlement and therefore, such proceedings stood closed at the level of the Conciliation Officer leaving the parties to take up the matter before the Labour Court. However, through another letter dated 25.09.2017 the Conciliation Officer at Chandigarh wrote to the workman that the demand notice sent by him was rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction and this was because at the time of termination of his services respondent No.1 was serving at Tirupur (Tamil Nadu). Letter of the Conciliation Officer dated 25.09.2017 became the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition preferred against it by respondent No.1.

5. A learned Single Judge of this Court was of the view that the decision to terminate the services of the workman had been taken at the appellant's head office at Chandigarh and that the letter terminating respondent No.1's services had also been issued from Chandigarh. Therefore, relying on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Nandram v. Garware Polyster Limited, (2016) 6 SCC 290 and Bikash Bhushan Ghosh & ors. v. M/s Novartis India Limited & anr. (2007) 5 SCC 591 the learned Single Judge held that the Labour Court at Chandigarh would have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon respondent No.1's claim.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge by submitting that at the time of termination of respondent No.1's services the situs of his employment was in Tirupur and that the letter terminating respondent No.1's services had also been served upon him at Tirupur (Tamil Nadu). Therefore, the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon respondent No.1's claim lay only with the Labour Court at Tirupur (Tamil Nadu).

7. In support of the afore submissions reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Sri. Ranga Vilas Motors (P) Limited v. Sri. Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. and others AIR 1967 SC 1040 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Lal v. Labour Court, Patiala and others (1986) 2 LLJ 231.

8. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant have been considered.

9. In Nandram's case (supra) the appellant before the Supreme Court (hereinafter