The Labour Court at Chandigarh has jurisdiction over the dispute as the decision to terminate the workman was made at the head office located there, despite the workman being posted in Tirupur.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J.

Petitioner-Upinder Kumar Singla, has filed the present writ petition for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.09.2017(Annexure P-1), passed by the respondent No. 1- Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation officer, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby, the demand notice served by the petitioner has been rejected after suo moto reviewing the earlier order dated 15.09.2017 (Annexure P-5).

2. Facts detailed in the demand notice are that workman-Upinder Kumar Singla joined his services with respondent No.2-M/s Groz-Beckert Asia Pvt, Limited, 133-135, Industrial Area-I, Chandigarh on 01.02.1986 at the age of 19+ as a Trainee (General Clerk) vide appointment letter dated 31.01.1986. The appointment letter was issued under the signature of Vice President (Tech.) as appointing authority. The service of the workman was confirmed vide letter dated 31.01.1988 as Personnel/Time Office Assistant. The said confirmation letter was also issued by Vice President (Tech) as appointing authority.

The workman was assigned the duties of a clerk to do manual working such as marking the attendance in attendance register, maintaining the leave records, making of shift notice, maintaining the records of uniform i.e. stitching, issuing and washing etc. of the entire workers of the company, data preparation for wages and deduction like diet taken, advances, loans etc.

Later on, workman was promoted to the post of Assistant Officer (personnel) in Grade-III vide letter dated 31.07.1996 w.e.f. 01.07.1996. Due to the efficient working and hard work put in by the workman, he was further promoted to Personnel Officer in Grade -IV in the year 2000. In 2005, he was further promoted as Executive-Personnel and IR in Grade IV. Again, the workman was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager(Pers & IR) in the year 2011. Recommendations were made by HOD-Mr. M.S. Dhaliwal (Vice President Admin). After the transfer of the workman at RO South-Tirupur Office, he was handed over a relieving letter dated 21.04.2017 issued from HO (Head Office) stating therein that:

"Dear, Mr. singla,

This is to inform you that your services are no longer required and as such, you stand relieved from the services of the Company with effect from today the 24th of April, 2017.

In accordance with Clause No.5 of your contract of employment dated 31.01.987 and subsequent changes thereto, you shall be paid three months pay in lieu of the notice period.

Accordingly your full and final dues including three months notice pay shall be paid to you in due course of time."

3. Thus, there being a complete violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947'), the workman served a demand notice. During the proceedings before Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum- Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, respondent-Management filed its 'written comments' to the said demand notice and submitted therein that workman was functioning in a supervisory category and at the time of his relieving from the service of the company, his gross salary was Rs. 72,484.00/- per month and he was also entitled for other perks. Question in regard to the jurisdiction was also raised that:

"3. Sh. Upinder Kumar Singla was posted as Executive-Sales as on 24.04.2017 at Tirupur (Tamil Nadu), when his services were dispensed with vide letter dated 24.04.2017, therefore, the learned Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the present demand notice and, as such, the present notice needs to be rejected.

Although, reply was also given on the factual aspects in regard to quality of services rendered by the workman.

4. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, respondent No. 1 informed workman was informed that no amicable settlement of the dispute was possible and thus, the proceedings were closed. It was left open for the parties to file their claim before the appropriate Authority in the Labour Court.

The relevant part of the said letter is reproduced hereinbelow:

'From

The A