Page 1

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  

1

Page 2

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  

2

Page 3

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  

3

Page 4

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.

4

Page 5

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  

5