NANDRAM Vs. M/S GARWARE POLYSTER LTD.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 1409 of 2016, Judgment Date: Feb 16, 2016

                                                                 REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1409  OF 2016
                 (Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 33917 of 2011)


NANDRAM                                                         APPELLANT

                                VERSUS

M/S GARWARE POLYSTER LTD.                                      RESPONDENT



                            J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1.    Leave granted.

2.    The appellant was employed  by  the  respondent  initially  as  Boiler
Attendant in the year 1983 in the Company in Aurangabad.  Thereafter he  was
promoted as Junior Supervisor in the year 1987 and worked in the  Aurangabad
plant only.  In the year 1995, he was again promoted  as  Senior  Supervisor
and continued in Aurangabad. However, by proceedings dated  21.10.2000,  the
appellant was transferred to Silvasa in Gujarat.   By  another  order  dated
20.12.2001 he was transferred from Silvasa  to  Pondicherry.  While  so,  by
proceeding dated 12.04.2005, appellant was terminated  from  service  w.e.f.
15.04.2005 on account of closure of the establishment  at  Pondicherry.   It
is not  in  dispute  that  the  registered  office  of  the  Company  is  in
Aurangabad and the decision to close the establishment  at  Pondicherry  was
taken by the Company at Aurangabad.

3.    Aggrieved by the termination, appellant  moved  the  Labour  Court  at
Aurangabad in complaint ULP No.56 of 2005. Despite the  objection  taken  by
the respondent that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction, the Court held  in
favour of the complainant.

4.    Aggrieved, the  respondent-Company  took  up  the  matter  before  the
Industrial Court  at  Aurangabad  in  revision.   The  Industrial  Court  at
Aurangabad vide order dated 04.07.2009 set aside the  order  passed  by  the
Labour Court and dismissed the complaint of the appellant holding  that  the
Labour Court  at  Aurangabad   did  not  have  territorial  jurisdiction  to
entertain the complaint of the appellant, since the termination  took  place
at Pondicherry.  The appellant moved the High Court of Judicature of  Bombay
at Aurangabad in Writ  Petition  No.  4968  of  2009.   The  High  Court  by
judgment dated 07.06.2011 affirmed the view taken by  the  Industrial  Court
and held that the situs of employment of the  appellant  being  Pondicherry,
the Labour Court at Aurangabad did not have territorial jurisdiction  to  go
into the complaint filed by the appellant.  Thus  aggrieved,  the  appellant
is before this Court.

5.    Though, the learned counsel on both sides had addressed in  detail  on
several issues, we do not think it necessary to go into  all  those  aspects
mainly because in our view they are only academic.   In  the  background  of
the factual matrix, the  undisputed  position  is  that  the  appellant  was
employed  by  the  Company  in  Aurangabad,  he  was  only  transferred   to
Pondicherry, the decision to close down the unit at  Pondicherry  was  taken
by the Company at Aurangabad and consequent  upon  that  decision  only  the
appellant was terminated.  Therefore, it cannot be said  that  there  is  no
cause of action at  all  in  Aurangabad.   The  decision  to  terminate  the
appellant having been taken at Aurangabad necessarily part of the  cause  of
action has arisen at Aurangabad.  We have  no  quarrel  that  Labour  Court,
Pondicherry  is  within  its  jurisdiction  to  consider  the  case  of  the
appellant,  since  he  has  been  terminated  while  he   was   working   at
Pondicherry.  But that does not mean that Labour Court in Aurangabad  within
whose jurisdiction the Management is situated and where the  Management  has
taken the decision to close down the unit at  Pondicherry  and  pursuant  to
which the appellant was terminated from  service  also  does  not  have  the
jurisdiction.  In the facts of this case both the  Labour  Courts  have  the
jurisdiction  to  deal  with  the  matter.   Hence,  the  Labour  Court   at
Aurangabad is well within its jurisdiction to consider the  complaint  filed
by the appellant.  Therefore, we set aside the  order  passed  by  the  High
Court and the Industrial Court at Aurangabad and restore  the  order  passed
by the Labour Court, Aurangabad though for different reasons.

6.     The Labour Court shall consider the  complaint  on  merits  and  pass
final orders within six months from today.   The  parties  are  directed  to
appear before the Labour Court on 08.03.2016.

7.     It  is  made  clear  that  all  other   contentions   regarding   the
jurisdiction on other aspects in terms of  the  Maharashtra  Recognition  of
Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices  Act,  1971  are  left
open since such questions do not arise in the factual matrix of the  present
case.


8.    The appeal is allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs.


                                                         .................J.
                                                            [KURIAN JOSEPH]



                                                      ....................J.
                                                    [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 16, 2016