SHYAM SUNDER SETH Vs. S M LIMAYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition has been filed against the order of the Labour Court at Mumbai dated 15. 12. 1995 and the order of the Revisional Court dated 6. 3. 1996. Both the courts have held that the Labour Court at Mumbai constituted under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 has no jurisdiction to try the dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2. According to both the courts below either the Labour Court at Kolkata where the Respondent No. 2 had its Head office or the Labour court at Ahmedabad would have jurisdiction to try the dispute between the parties.

(2.) THE Petitioner was employed with Respondent No. 2 company sometime in 1973. The Petitioner was required to work not only for Respondent No. 2 but also for m/s. Hindustan Safety Glass works Limited and M/s. Triveni sheet Glass Works Ltd. During this period the petitioner worked without giving any cause for complaint to Respondent No. 2. On 12. 3. 1981, the Petitioner was asked to proceed to Ahmedabad to open a new depot. The petitioner did not proceed as per the directions of the officer of M/s. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Limited, kolkata. Therefore* a show-cause memo was issued to him by M/s. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. after a year directing him to go to Ahmedabad to open the depot. The petitioner agreed to proceed to Ahmedabad under protest on a temporary basis keeping Mumbai a Headquarters. Accordingly, the Petitioner proceeded to Ahmedabad to open the new depot for M/s. Hindustan Safety Glass Works ltd. The Petitioner worked in Ahmedabad from 12. 3. 1982 to 15. 7. 1982. The Petitioner then sought leave from the kolkata head office to return to Mumbai as he was indisposed and had to settle the affairs of his family. This application for leave was made on 2. 7. 1982. Thereafter the Petitioner cought extension of his leave by and letter dated 17. 8. 1982. On 25. 8. 1982, the petitioner was called upon to return to Ahmedabad as the company had rented a flat for him in Ahmedabad after he had agreed to be transferred to Ahmedabad. Despite all these latter's, the Petitioner refused to return to ahmedabad. Accordingly, a show-cause memo was issued to him in October, 1982 to which the Petitioner replied stating that he was not expected to go to Ahmedabad as he had agreed to proceed to that city in March 1982 only on a temporary basis and, therefore, the entire show cause notice ought to be withdrawn. Not being satisfied with the explanation given by the Petitioner, his services were terminated by a latter dated 6. 6. 1983. Being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 6. 6. 1983, the Petitioner filed complaint under Item 1 of schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act on 5. 9. 1983. Respondent No. 2 resisted the complaint by filing their written statement stating that the Labour Court in mumbai had no jurisdiction to try the complaint as the cause of action had arisen in Ahmedabad. This complaint was allowed by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by this, respondent No. 2 challenged the order in the complaint by filing Revision Application (ULP) No. 88 of 1995. The industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Court and remanded the proceedings back to the Labour Court for a fresh hearing. A Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the order in the Revision. Application was rejected. The complaint was then decided afresh. The Labour Court framed several issues including the issue regarding jurisdiction. The Labour court came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to try the complaint since the cause of action had arisen in Ahmedabad and the Labour Court in Mumbai would have no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Moreover, it was held that since the Court in Mumbai had no jurisdiction the MRTU and PULP Act was not applicable.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by this order of the Labour court the Petitioner preferred a Revision Application which was decided by order dated 6. 3. 1996. The industrial Court confirmed the order of the Labour Court and held that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Being aggrieved by both these orders, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.