The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of jurisdiction in industrial disputes, emphasizing the importance of service of termination order in establishing the cause of action and considering the convenience of the parties in deciding the jurisdiction.

In this case on 16. 10. 2008 following order was passed (on the order sheet):

"question of jurisdiction was raised before the Labour Court and on behalf of employer-petitioner it was prayed that it might be decided as a preliminary issue. Labour Court held that question of jurisdiction would be decided alongwith other issues while deciding the reference finally. The dispute is as to whether Labour Court at Kanpur or Labour Court at Mumbai will have jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute between the parties. The Court proposes to decide the question of jurisdiction finally in this writ petition i. e. whether Labour Court at Kanpur has got jurisdiction or Labour Court at Mumbai. As it is a pure question of law and there is no dispute regarding facts which are necessary for deciding this question hence no counter affidavit is necessary.

Learned counsel for both the parties agree for final decision on the question of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, put up on 18. 10. 2008. 17. 10. 2008 is reported to be the date fixed before the Labour Court at Kanpur. If an adjournment application is filed then the case may be adjourned for about two weeks. "

2. Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companys Act having its registered office at Mumbai. Petitioner No. 2 is Branch Manager of the Company of its branch at Kanpur. According to para- 4 of the writ petition petitioner company is having one of its sales offices at Kanpur. According to para-5 of the writ petition respondent No. 3-Abhisekh Narain Saxena was appointed as sales assistant with effect from 10. 5. 2004 and posted at Kanpur branch. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is the appointment letter issued by Sr. Manager (Administration ). Place of issuance of the letter is not mentioned however, it is addressed to respondent No. 3 on his address of Kanpur. According to para-6 of the writ petition, after six months of probation period, respondent No. 3 was confirmed. It has also been stated in the said para that services were liable to be transferred to any place where company was doing business (clause V of the appointment letter ). According to para-7 of the writ petition, on 31. 8. 2005 respondent No. 3 was transferred to head office of the company at Mumbai and he was required to join the duties there by 19. 9. 2005. Respondent No. 3 reported for duty at Mumbai office on 19. 9. 2005. According to para-9 of the writ petition, the respondent No. 3 on the very next day i. e. 20. 9. 2005 left Mumbai for Kanpur to attend to his allegedly ailing mother without proper sanction of leave. Letter written by respondent No. 3 on 20. 9. 2005 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In para-10 of the writ petition it is stated that respondent No. 3 continued to write the letters regarding prolonged illness of his mother and remained absent without due leave however, petitioner company taking a sympathetic view of his mothers illness did not take any adverse action against respondent No. 3. Thereafter in para-11 of the writ petition it has been stated that on 13. 10. 2005 respondent No. 3 again requested for extension of his leave and further requested that petitioner might allow him to resume duty at Kanpur. The said letter was received by the petitioner at its Mumbai office on 21. 10. 2005 copy of the said letter is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In the said letter it was stated that respondent No. 3 should join duty at Mumbai latest by 7. 11. 2005 failing which company would be forced to take disciplinary action against him. The said letter was addressed to respondent No. 3 at his Kanpur address. Similar letter was written by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 on 11. 11. 2005, true copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition asking him to join immediately at Mumbai. Respondent No. 3 through his letter dated 17. 11. 2005 again asked for leave due to his mothers illness. Another letter was sent by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 on 29. 11. 2005 asking the respondent No.