The appropriate government for an industrial dispute is the authority with jurisdiction over the situs of employment and the location where the termination occurred. The presence of an administrative office in another region does not confer jurisdiction unless the cause of action substantially arises within that territory.

JUDGMENT :

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner/workman assailing the Award dated 03.07.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XIX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in LIR No. 30/2012, whereby the learned Labour Court held that the Government of NCT of Delhi was not the “appropriate Government” for making the reference and consequently held the claim of the Petitioner/workman to be not maintainable before the Labour Court at Delhi.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. Brief facts emerging from the record, necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition, are that the Petitioner/workman claimed to have joined the services of the Respondent/management on 20.11.1978 as a Clerk/Sale Purchase Assistant and alleged that he had continuously worked under the management till November, 2009. It was further the case of the Petitioner/workman that the management had been operating under different names and styles, namely M/s Delhi Industrial Syndicate, M/s Asian Engineering Company, M/s Enicar Machine (India) and M/s Precision Tanks and Vessels (P) Ltd., and that he had worked in all the said establishments under the same management and control.

3. According to the Petitioner/workman, he lastly attended duties on 27.11.2009 at the establishment of M/s Enicar Machine (India) situated at B-616, Nehru Ground, Faridabad, Haryana. The Petitioner/workman alleged that on the said date, he was orally directed by the management not to report for duties with effect from 28.11.2009, without issuance of any written order, charge-sheet or domestic enquiry. It was also alleged that his salary for the months of October and November, 2009 had been withheld by the management.

4. The record further reflects that the Petitioner/workman issued a demand notice dated 09.12.2009 seeking reinstatement in service along with back wages and other consequential benefits. The Petitioner/workman also initiated proceedings for recovery of alleged dues amounting to Rs.1,63,000/-. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings were initiated before the Conciliation Officer, which ultimately culminated in a reference being made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi vide Reference No. F.24(405)/11/SWD/Lab./7718-7721 dated 25.11.2011 to the Labour Court-XIX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on the following terms:

“Whether there existed an employer-employee relationship between the management and Shri RajeshwarDayal Aggarwal S/o Shri Shobha Ram Aggarwal and if so, whether services of said Shri RajeshwarDayal Aggarwal have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled?”

5. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner/workman filed a statement of claim before the learned Labour Court seeking reinstatement in service with continuity of service, full back wages and consequential benefits. The Respondent/management contested the claim by filing its written statement, wherein the existence of employer-employee relationship was denied. The management further contended that the establishments referred to by the Petitioner/wo