IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal is based on the location of the cause of action, and it cannot extend to areas where the cause of action did not arise, even if related orders are served elsewhere.

JUDGMENT :

SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of medical representative in the company known as M/s Tamilnadu Dada Pharmaceutical Limited. The service of the petitioner was confirmed on the post of Medical Representative on 28.10.1991 in the Agra region.

2. Thereafter, the company M/s Tamilnadu Dada Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was merged in the company known as M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and the petitioner became an employee of the company into which the employer company had merged i.e. he became an employee of M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited.

3. On 5.9.2002, the petitioner was transferred to Bedar (Karnataka). On 16.11.2002, as luck would have it, the respondent no. 3 the Employer Company, terminated the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 23.3.2006. The reference was to following effect:

^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk Jh fouksn dqekj flag] esfMdy fjÁstsUVsfVo dh lsok;sa fnukad 16-11-2002 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@mi'ke ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa vU; fdu fooj.kksa lfgrA**

4. The respondent no. 3 raised the question of jurisdiction with regard to the reference before the Tribunal at Uttar Pradesh and on 19.11.2012, the respondent no. 2 i.e. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-IV, Agra, passed an order holding that it had no jurisdiction to decide the case as the termination had taken place in Bedar (Karnataka).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Bushra Maryam has submitted that the respondent no. 2, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -IV, Agra, could not have gone behind the reference and for this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 Law Suit (SC) 1310: National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. This citation can also be found in 2000 (1) SCC 371. In this judgment, she has specifically relied upon paragraphs no. 26 and 28 and, therefore they are being reproduced here as under:

“26. There can be many splinter groups each forming a separate trade union. Under Section 4 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 any seven or more members of a trade union can get the trade union registered under that Act. If every trade union having few members is to go on raising a dispute and the State Government making reference again and again the very purpose of settlement is defeated. Once there is a representative union, which in the present case, is the Labour Union, it is difficult to see the role of the Workers' Union. If there are number of trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 not entitled to be registered as representative unions and they raise disputes, industrial peace would be a far cry. Under Section 2(0000)9 of the Rajasthan Act 'representative union' means a union for the time being registered as a representative union under the Rajasthan Act (Rajasthan Act XXXIV of 1950). Under Section 9-D1010 of the aforesaid Rajasthan Act any Union which has for the whole of the period of at least three months during the period of six months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it so applies under this section a membership of not less than fifteen per cent of the total number of workmen employed in unit of an industry may apply in the prescribed form to the Registrar for registration as a Representative Union. Then under Section 9-FI111 registration of a representative union can be cancelled on various grounds mentioned therein and one of such grounds is if, after holding such an inquiry, if any, as the Registrar deems fit he is satisfied that the registered union is being conducted not bona fide in the interest of the workmen but in the interest of the employers to the prejudice of the interest of the workmen. We have already quoted Section 9-E as to how a representative union is to be