$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 09.02.2026 Date of decision: 15.04.2026 Uploaded on: 15.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 5844/2005 & CM APPL. 4367/2005 M/S IBP COMPANY LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sauresh Rai, Mr. Neeraj Kumar and Ms. Upasna Singh, Advs.

versus MR SHAILENDRA KUMAR & ANR .....Respondents Through: None CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

SHAIL JAIN, J

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, assailing the Order dated 05.08.2004 (hereinafter ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the learned Labour Court X, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2. The Learned Labour Court dismissed the application filed by Petitioner challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts at Delhi inter alia on the ground that the Petitioner cannot agitate and press same point already raised before parallel Court. Further holding that if, the management was aggrieved of the said order they should have approached to the Higher Court.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The Petitioner is a Government (Central) company under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, having establishments across India.

4. The Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Fitter on 01.09.1984 and was subsequently transferred to the Petitioner’s Lucknow Division on

01.09.1985, where he continued to discharge his duties.

5. In April 1986, certain acts of alleged misconduct were attributed to the Respondent No. 1 during the course of his employment at Lucknow. Pursuant thereto, Charge-Sheets were issued in the years 1987 and 1988. A domestic enquiry was conducted at Lucknow in which the Respondent participated.

6. The Enquiry Officer, by Report dated 22.12.1989, found the Respondent guilty of the charges leveled against him. After considering the reply to the Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner passed an Order dated 19.07.1990 dismissing the Respondent from service with effect from

23.07.1990.

7. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the Respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer at Delhi in the year 1991. The Petitioner herein contested the maintainability of the proceedings inter alia on the ground that the entire cause of action had arisen at Lucknow and that the authorities at Delhi lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The conciliation proceedings culminated in failure, and a report under Section

12(4) of the Act, was submitted.

8. Thereafter, by Order dated 08.07.1992, the Delhi Administration, referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication on the question as to whether the dismissal of the Respondent was illegal and/or unjustified and to what relief he was entitled. The terms of reference is extracted as under:

"Whether the dismissal of services of Shri Shailendra Kumar is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?"

9. The Respondent filed his Statement of Claim before the Labour Court, to which the Petitioner filed its written statement raising, inter alia, objections regarding territorial jurisdiction as well as the competency of the appropriate Government under Section 2(a) of the Act.

10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court on 06.01.1997 framed issues, including the questions of jurisdiction and validity of the enquiry. The issues framed are as following:

“1. Whether Secretary (Labour) NCT of Delhi is the competent authority to make the present reference. In view of the objection taken on behalf of the Management regarding territorial jurisdiction?

2. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present reference?

3. Whether the enquiry conducted by the Management was not fair and proper? and

4. As in terms of reference.”

11. After hearing the parties at length and considering the various judgments relied upon by the Petitioner, the Ld. Labour Court (LABOUR COURT X, TIS HAZARI, DELHI) vid