KHALID A HAKIM Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. Parikh, learned Advocate for petitioner, mr. N. J. Shah, learned A. G. P. , for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. D. S. Vasavada, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3. Rule. Mr. Vasavada, Mr. Desai and Mr. Shah have waived service of notice of Rule. At the request and with the consent of all parties the petition is taken up for final hearing. 1. 1. The petitioner has preferred present petition seeking below mentioned reliefs :

(2.) THE facts leading to the presentation of this petition are as follows :

(3.) MRS. Parikh, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the entire, or at least part of the cause of action has arisen in the State of Gujarat, and that therefore, the applications cannot be maintained in the State of Andhra pradesh. She further submitted that no permission/sanction has been obtained by the applicants from State of Gujarat for filing the application in the State of Andhra Pradesh. She also submitted that the presentation of the application in the State of Andhra Pradesh is mala fide and the applications have been instituted only with a view to harassing the petitioner so as to extract the amounts which are otherwise not due and payable. She submitted that a huge and unbelievable claim of more than Rs. 24. 00 lakhs has been made. She submitted that the principal employer i. e. petitioner is in State of Gujarat, the contract was awarded in the State of Gujarat and it was also executed in the State of gujarat. Hence, the authority in the State of Andhra Pradesh would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the said application. So as to substantiate her submission, Mrs. Parikh, learned Advocate has relied upon the judgment reported in the case between Belal Biri Factory Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr. , reported in 2006 (3) LLJ 532 and Alchemist Ltd. and Anr. v. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors. , reported in air 2007 SC 1812.