Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Jurisdiction for Labour Cases - Generally, the jurisdiction depends on where the cause of action arises or where the employment activities or unfair labour practices occurred. If the incident or practice took place in Mumbai, the Labour Court at Mumbai typically has jurisdiction, even if the worker resides in Jharkhand. Conversely, if the act or practice occurred in Jharkhand, the Labour Court there may have jurisdiction. ["Manish Ashok Badkas vs Novartis India Ltd. - Bombay"], ["Abbott Healthcare Private Limited VS Maharudra Chikane - Bombay"], ["RAHUL JHA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND - Jharkhand"]
Residence of the Employee - The employee's residence in Jharkhand does not automatically confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court in Jharkhand for cases related to employment or labour practices that occurred elsewhere. The key factor is where the employment act, unfair labour practice, or incident took place. For example, if unfair labour practices or the termination occurred in Mumbai, Mumbai Labour Court has jurisdiction, regardless of the employee's residence. ["Manish Ashok Badkas vs Novartis India Ltd. - Bombay"], ["Abbott Healthcare Private Limited VS Maharudra Chikane - Bombay"]
Cause of Action - The cause of action typically arises at the place where the act or practice was committed or where the employment relationship was predominantly centered. For instance, if the unfair labour practice or death occurred in Mumbai, the Mumbai Labour Court would be competent. If the practice or incident was in Jharkhand, then Jharkhand courts could have jurisdiction. ["RAHUL JHA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND - Jharkhand"], ["KARU RAM vs CCM /FS - Railway Claim Tribunal"]
Specific Cases & Judicial Precedents - Courts have held that even if the employee resides elsewhere, the jurisdiction is determined by the location of the employment or the incident. For example, in one case, the Court noted that the cause of action on account of alleged unfair labour practice would arise only at one of these two places and not at any third place ["Manish Ashok Badkas vs Novartis India Ltd. - Bombay"]. Similarly, in cases where the act was performed in Mumbai, the Mumbai Labour Court was held to have jurisdiction despite the employee's residence in Jharkhand ["RAHUL JHA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND - Jharkhand"].
Summary - For a labour death or unfair labour practice in Mumbai, the Labour Court at Mumbai generally has jurisdiction, regardless of the worker’s residence in Jharkhand. The key consideration is where the act or practice occurred. If the incident or employment-related act took place in Mumbai, filing labour cases in Mumbai is appropriate, even if the employee or deceased’s residence is in Jharkhand. Conversely, if the act occurred in Jharkhand, jurisdiction lies there.
References:- ["Manish Ashok Badkas vs Novartis India Ltd. - Bombay"]- ["Abbott Healthcare Private Limited VS Maharudra Chikane - Bombay"]- ["RAHUL JHA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND - Jharkhand"]- ["KARU RAM vs CCM /FS - Railway Claim Tribunal"]
Imagine a tragic scenario: a labourer from Jharkhand loses their life while performing duties at a worksite in Mumbai. The family, grieving and seeking justice or compensation, wonders: Can a labour case be filed in both places, or where exactly? This common question arises in cross-state employment disputes under Indian labour laws, particularly the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Understanding jurisdiction is crucial to avoid delays or dismissals.
In this post, we break down the legal principles governing such cases, drawing from judicial precedents. Note that this is general information based on established cases and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Generally, the territorial jurisdiction for labour disputes is determined by the place of employment or where the cause of action arises, not the worker's residence. In the scenario of a labourer dying during duty in Mumbai (with residence in Jharkhand), the dispute typically belongs in Mumbai courts or labour authorities. This stems from the principle that the situs of employment of the workman determines the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal in disputes arising from termination of employment or incidents during work J. N. Bardhan, a partnership firm through its Managing Partner Shri J. N. Bardhan son of late Shivnath Bardhan VS Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna - 2019 0 Supreme(Jhk) 776.
Key points include:- Place of work is primary: The worksite in Mumbai is where the employment relationship was active and the incident (death) occurred J. N. Bardhan, a partnership firm through its Managing Partner Shri J. N. Bardhan son of late Shivnath Bardhan VS Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna - 2019 0 Supreme(Jhk) 776Upendra Sah, S/o Dhaneshwar Sah Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 211.- Cause of action location: Claims for compensation or disputes over death benefits arise at the incident site, linking jurisdiction to Mumbai Upendra Sah, S/o Dhaneshwar Sah Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 211.- Residence secondary: A worker's home state (Jharkhand) does not automatically confer jurisdiction unless the cause of action is tied there J. N. Bardhan, a partnership firm through its Managing Partner Shri J. N. Bardhan son of late Shivnath Bardhan VS Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna - 2019 0 Supreme(Jhk) 776.
Courts consistently hold that labour tribunals' jurisdiction aligns with where the work was performed. For instance, the situs of employment of the workman determines the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the case of Industrial and Labour disputes arising from the termination of such employment J. N. Bardhan, a partnership firm through its Managing Partner Shri J. N. Bardhan son of late Shivnath Bardhan VS Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna - 2019 0 Supreme(Jhk) 776. Though this quote addresses termination, it extends to incident-based disputes like death during duty, as the employment nexus is the same.
In a parallel case under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, jurisdiction was upheld for the Labour Court at Kanpur where the termination order was served on the workman residing there, despite the company's head office in Mumbai. The court noted: In instant case, termination order of workman-respondent-3 served at Kanpur—Moreover, petitioners-company is having its office in U.P. also—And, respondent-3-workman is also residing at Kanpur—Held, State of U.P. has rightly made a reference and Labour Court at Kanpur has got jurisdiction to decide same SAFARI INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. , MUMBAI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2009 Supreme(All) 153SAFARI INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD VS STATE OF U P - 2009 Supreme(All) 155. This highlights service of order or local ties, but in death cases without such elements in Jharkhand, Mumbai prevails.
The cause of action for labour death claims—such as under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, or Industrial Disputes Act—arises where the death occurred during employment. Jurisdiction depends on where the cause of action arises, which is usually at the place of work or where the incident occurred Upendra Sah, S/o Dhaneshwar Sah Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 211. Mumbai, as the duty site, hosts evidence, witnesses, and employer records.
Another Bombay case reinforces this: merely because the order of termination is issued from the Head Office at Mumbai, would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Labour Court at Mumbai to try and entertain complaint of unfair labour practices if local factors differ RAPTAKOS BRETT AND CO. LTD. vs PAWAN SHARMA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5883. Conversely, here the incident's location strongly favors Mumbai.
Residence matters for convenience or if part of the cause of action (e.g., payment issues there), but not standalone. No precedent supports filing solely in Jharkhand for a Mumbai incident. Courts prioritize the employment situs to ensure efficient adjudication J. N. Bardhan, a partnership firm through its Managing Partner Shri J. N. Bardhan son of late Shivnath Bardhan VS Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna - 2019 0 Supreme(Jhk) 776.
Parties should check employment contracts for forum clauses, though general principles dominate absent specifics.
While Mumbai is primary, exceptions may apply:- Local Ties: If termination notice or payments served in Jharkhand, or employer has presence there, argue dual jurisdiction—but rare for death claims SAFARI INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. , MUMBAI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2009 Supreme(All) 153.- Convenience of Parties: Courts consider this, as in Kanpur case where workman resided locally and company had an office SAFARI INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD VS STATE OF U P - 2009 Supreme(All) 155. Jharkhand family might seek transfer, but success low without strong grounds.- Statutory Variations: Under ESI Act or specific state rules, nuances exist, but core labour disputes follow incident location RAHUL JHA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND - Jharkhand_HC_JHHC010294962012 snippet on Mumbai Labour Dept.- Supreme Court View: Part cause of action at multiple places allows options, but here it's predominantly Mumbai V G JAGDISHAN vs M/S. INDFOS INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED.
To navigate this:1. File in Mumbai: Approach Mumbai Labour Commissioner or Court promptly for claims like ex-gratia, compensation.2. Gather Evidence: Worksite records, death certificate, employment proof—all Mumbai-centric.3. Seek Legal Aid: Jharkhand family can engage Mumbai counsel; virtual hearings possible post-COVID.4. Verify Contracts/Statutes: Check for jurisdiction clauses or applicable acts (e.g., unorganised workers schemes).5. Avoid Delays: Limitation periods apply; jurisdiction challenges prolong matters.
Labour laws aim to protect workers efficiently. For personalized guidance, consult a labour law expert in the relevant jurisdiction. Stay informed, act swiftly, and seek justice effectively.
References:1. J. N. Bardhan, a partnership firm through its Managing Partner Shri J. N. Bardhan son of late Shivnath Bardhan VS Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna - 2019 0 Supreme(Jhk) 776: Situs of employment key.2. Upendra Sah, S/o Dhaneshwar Sah Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 211: Cause of action at work/incident place.3. SAFARI INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. , MUMBAI VS STATE OF U. P. - 2009 Supreme(All) 153, SAFARI INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD VS STATE OF U P - 2009 Supreme(All) 155: Service and local convenience factors.4. RAPTAKOS BRETT AND CO. LTD. vs PAWAN SHARMA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5883: Head office not decisive.
#LabourLaw #JurisdictionIndia #IndustrialDispute
ULP 255 of 2003 was filed in the Industrial Court at Mumbai, alleging unfair labour practices. ... Regarding Writ Petition No. 798 of 2008, the records show that approximately 50 complaints of unfair labour practices were filed in the Labour Court at Mumbai under the provisions of the MRTU Act. ... Second alternative requirement for jurisdiction, namely the residence of the defendant as conceived under the above ratio, which was not available in that....
filed at Mumbai. ... jurisdiction on Labour Court at Mumbai to entertain and decide the complaint of unfair labour practices filed by the petitioner at Mumbai. ... on Labour Court at Mumbai. ... Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act, 1971), filed by the employees of the petitioners, alleging unfair labour practices, in an identical fact situation. ... Under section 7 of the Act, it....
In the present case though the employer has filed such application on 31.05.2011 for the period of exemption for the period Labour Department, Mumbai and anotheronly 14 days before the expiry of that period, meaning thereby the was free to decide the case on merits, exempting those period from under the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948 for the period from p style
... 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. ... In the instant case petitioners company is having its office in U. P. also. Accordingly, it will not face any inconvenience in contesting the case before Labour Court at Kanpur. On the other hand respondent No. 3 the workman is residing at Kanpur. He worked at Mu....
... 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." ... Before the Labour Court petitioner-employer raised the question of jurisdiction contending that as termination order had been passed at Mumbai and petitioner was at the relevant time posted at Mumbai hence State of Mumbai and not of U.P. had jurisdiction to ....
That was a case where it was specifically found that the part cause of action had arisen at both places. ... Court at Delhi would have no jurisdiction to try the case and that the Labour Court at Ghaziabad the Labour Court at Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to try the case. ... Therefore, in the present case, the Labour Court did not territorial jurisdiction to decide the case or the La....
has been filed. ... Rajesh Prasad, son of not known, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Deoghar, Government of Jharkhand, Williams Town, P.O.-B. Deoghar, P.S. ... Marg, residing at far off places simply to harass them. ... The State of Jharkhand. 2.
In my opinion, merely because the order of termination is issued from the Head Office at Mumbai, would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Labour Court at Mumbai to try and entertain complaint of unfair labour practices filed by the petitioner at Mumbai. ... The dismissal order is subject matter of separate Complaint (ULP) No. 40/2021 filed before the First Labour Court, Mumbai under MRTU & PULP Act, which is pending. ... (s....
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand. 2.The Labour Commissioner, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand. ... The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand. 2.The Labour Commissioner, Dept of Labour#HL_END....
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand. 2.The Labour Commissioner, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand. ... The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Dept of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill Development, Govt of Jharkhand. 2.The Labour Commissioner, Dept of Labour#HL_END....
Even as per the list of exhibits marked by the workman before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent / workman served till May, 2001 and thereafter, he has not filed any documents to establish that the 2nd respondent was continuously pursuing the matter till such time he raised the Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court. Though he approached the Labour Officer, he had not raised the Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court during that period or at least within a reasonable period of time. In the year 2001, the 2nd respondent claimed that the petitioner denied employment....
(iv) Labour Commissioner of the State of Jharkhand. (iii) Director, Judicial Academy of the State of Jharkhand
The baby might have died during the pregnancy (intrauterine death) or during labour or birth. The medical terminology of ‘stillborn babies’ is the birth of a baby who is born without any sign of life at or after twenty four weeks of pregnancy. It is further contended that no person of nearby villages or any person residing near Duburi Hills nor the people who were grazing cattle at the time of alleged occurrence have been examined to corroborate the claim as mentioned in the F.I.R. Therefore, the prosecution case on the face of it is not relating to termination of pregnancy....
He was directed to join Hoshangabad by order dated 03.02.2004 (Annexure P-8). The respondent no.2 did not consider the leave application and the medical certificate of the petitioner and passed an order for instituting the departmental enquiry against him. Thereafter, he had joined duty in Labour Court Hoshangabad on 05.02.2004. He had given an objection to the appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presiding Officer, vide Annexure P-12.
In the said charge sheet, petitioner Nos. 1-9 was arrayed as accused Nos. 5-13. After carrying out the search at the official residence of Shri B.R. Meena and his family members at various places, finally, the C.B.I., on 27.03.2008, filed charge sheet before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Greater Mumbai. During the said period, he was posted at various places such as Calcutta, Ahmedabad, Jaipur and Mumbai. The substance of allegations in the FIR against Shri B.R. Meena was that he was in possession of disproportionate assets from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.2005.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
