JUDGMENT

Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral)

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 17.01.2000 (Annexure P-1), whereby the appropriate Government sent the reference before the Labour Court, Gurgaon for adjudicating the labour dispute, as well as the order dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurugram/Respondent No.1, whereby the preliminary issue relating to the territorial jurisdiction raised by the petitioner has been decided against it.

2. Briefly, the facts pleaded in the writ petition are that respondent No.2-Girvar Yadav was employed with M/s Airfreight (whose name was subsequently changed to AFL Private Limited), and at that time, the petitioner-M/s DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. was a division of Airfreight Limited and both the companies were got demerged w.e.f. 01.01.2002 vide the 'Scheme of De-merger' which was duly approved by the High Court of Bombay vide order dated 26.11.2001. Respondent No.2 was employed by the petitioner as a Courier and posted at Green Park, New Delhi, who remained posted till 27.11.1998, when he was dismissed from service for certain acts of gross misconduct involving cheating, misappropriation and assaulting a co-employee. All these events took place in Delhi. The misappropriation pertained to a courier collected from Neitherland Embassy Shanti Path, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, the cheating pertains to a courier picked from the US Embassy in New Delhi and respondent No.2 hit Sh. Vijay Negi, who had caught the cheating and misappropriation of respondent No.2. The workman hit him at Green Park in front of Drums of Heaven Restaurant. Thus the entire gamut of incidents, which formed the basis of charge-sheet took place at New Delhi. It is also averred that after conducting a fair and proper domestic enquiry by the petitioner into the charges, respondent No.2 was dismissed from service.

3. Upon his dismissal, respondent No.2 filed a claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gurugram. Thereafter, the Govt. of Haryana based on the purported dispute, filed the impugned reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurugram. Both the parties filed their respective pleadings. The petitioner raised the objection that the Govt. of Haryana was not the appropriate Govt. and consequently, the reference was not maintainable, as N.C.T. Delhi had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the alleged industrial dispute. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 06.08.2019 holding that the Govt. of Haryana had the necessary jurisdiction to refer the purported dispute for the adjudication by the Labour Court, Gurugram, as the head office of the petitioner was shifted to Gurugram at the time of dismissal of respondent No.2. Hence this writ petition.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the services of the petitioner as a Courier were engaged for work at the petitioner-company's office at Green Park, New Delhi and upon noticing his misconduct, he was subjected to the departmental enquiry at New Delhi, wherein he was found guilty. According to learned senior counsel, the order of dismissal from service was also served upon workman at his Delhi address, therefore, the industrial dispute raised by the workman at Gurgaon lacks