NESLIN JOSEPH PRIM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT-600 034

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Chennai, dated 17.7.2001, made in I.A.No. 35 of 2001 in I.D.No. 101 of 2001, holding that the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try the dispute referred, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and for consequential direction to the first respondent to take up the Industrial Dispute (I.D.101 of 2001) on its file and decide all the issues comprehensively including the merits of the case.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the second respondent Establishment is a joint venture company which undertakes the work of drilling for extraction of oil from the earth. As such the 2nd respondent is an Industry as per Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner joined the service of the 2nd respondent Organisation as an Assistant Driller on 29.4.89 by an order dated 28.4.89. On completion of probation period, he was appointed as an Assistant Driller by order dated 3.2.1990 with effect from 1.1.1990. He will be placed anywhere within the country of India where the rig work is to be carried out by the second respondent. He has worked in various places in India. He was promoted as a Driller on 1.3.1992 by a communication addressed to his residence at Chennai. He had put in more than 7 years of service. While so, the second respondent issued an order of dehiring dated 4.4.96 with effect from 18.5.96, in purported exercise of the power conferred under clause 19 of the Annexure of appointment order dated 29.4.89. Aggrieved by the said order, he raised an industrial dispute and filed a petition before the Conciliation Officer at Chennai which ended in failure. Subsequently the appropriate Government referred this dispute to the first respondent herein and the same was taken on the file of the 2nd respondent as I.D.No. 101 of 2001 for adjudication. While so, the second respondent filed I.A.No. 35 of 2001 in the said I.D.No. 101 of 2000 questioning the jurisdiction of the first respondent on the ground that the 2nd respondent head office was functioning at Delhi and they did not have any branch at Chennai. The first respondent Tribunal, by its order dated 17.7.2001, allowed the application on erroneous grounds and directed the Registry of the Tribunal to submit the entire records of I.D.No. 101 of 2001 to the Labour Ministry to pass a fresh reference of this Industrial Dispute to the competent tribunal with jurisdiction for adjudication. Aggrieved by the said order of the first respondent, having no other efficacious remedy, filed this petition.

(3.) IT is not disputed that petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Driller on 29.4.89 and subsequently was promoted as Driller. IT is also not disputed that the registered office of the 2nd respondent company is at Delhi and petitioner joined duty at Mehasana (Gujarat) and his last assignment was at Bhauch at Gujarat. As per Clause 19 of the order of appointment, the petitioner's appointment is terminable either by the Company or by the petitioner himself, after giving 45 days'notice and withou t assigning any reason. The Management has to pay salary in lieu of notice period. By referring to the said Clause (Clause 19) of the appointment order, the 2nd respondent by order dated 4.4.96, dehired the services of the petitioner with effect from 18.5.96, which is the subject matter in I.D.No.101 of 2001 on the file of the first respondent. Though the registered office of the second respondent situates at Delhi and the petitioner worked at Gujarat before his services were dehired, Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that since part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the first respondent, the latter is the competent authority to adjudicate the reference made by the Government of India. In this regard, he brought to my notice that the order of appointment was issued to the petitioner to his residential address at Chennai and the order of dehiring was also issued to him at the same address. IT was vehemently contended that the dispute can be raised in the place where the petitioner or the respondent resides or works or at the place where the cause of action has arisen with regard to the jurisdiction of a matter. IT was also argued that inasmuch as the cause of action being the termination of services, which took place at Chennai, the first respondent has necessary jurisdiction in law. I have also verified the appointment order and the order of dehiring and found that both the orders were sent to the petitioner at his residential address at Chennai.