GODREJ SOAPS LIMITED BOMBAY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHEMICAL Employees' Association, of which the 3rd respondent Narayanan is a member, has raised an industrial dispute in respect of the termination of the services of respondent 3 by the petitioner. The Government of Karnataka, by the order at Annexure-A dated 13-11-1987, in exercise of the powers under Section 10 (l) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, made a reference to the Labour Court, Bangalore. On several grounds, one of which being that the Government of karnataka is not the appropriate Government to make that reference, the petitioner seeks quashing of the said reference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner had appointed respondent 3 Narayanan as sales Supervisor, and he was assigned the territory of part of karnataka vested with the powers of supervision and control of a number of Salesmen working under him: The services of respondent 3 came to be terminated vide Annexure-D dated 14-8-1985 which was passed at Bombay and communicated at bombay. Certain other factors relating to respondent 3 staying at Bombay at the time Annexure-D came to be served on him, need to be stated. Respondent 3 had been earlier stationed at Anoti. Sri B. C. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner clarified that even this place is not in the State of Karnataka. Respondent 3 sought for change of headquarters from Anoti to Bombay as per annexure-B-1 dated 12-8-1982. He even undertook that the said transfer or shifting would be at his own cost and expenses. As per Annexure-B-2, the petitioner communicated that, with effect from 1-10-1982, the headquarters of respondent 3 would be bombay. In turn, respondent 3 wrote as per Annexure B-3 thanking the petitioner for having shifted his headquarters to bombay as per his request. He even intimated that he would charge the allowances accordingly. It was thus clear that respondent 3 was serving at Bombay and he was served with the termination order as per Annexure-D at Bombay, though the petitioner itself states in Annexure-D that respondent 3 was assigned a part of State of Karnataka as his area of operation.

(3.) THE question, therefore, is whether the fact that respondent 3 had been assigned Supervisory work over a part of State of karnataka would render the Government of Karnataka as the "appropriate Government" to make reference under Section 10 (1) (c)of the I. D. Act.