RAPTAKOS BRETT Vs. PAWAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition raises an important issue relating to jurisdiction of Industrial Court to entertain a complaint of unfair labour practice when an order of transfer is issued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial Court but is served on the employee posted outside the Industrial Court's jurisdiction. Thus, the issue that arises for determination is whether issuance of transfer order at Mumbai would confer jurisdiction on Industrial Court at Mumbai for entertaining complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 when such order seeks to transfer the Respondent from Sriganganagar (Rajasthan) to Shahjahanpur (Uttar Pradesh). By impugned order dtd. 4/5/2022, the Industrial Court has rejected Petitioner's objection of jurisdiction, which order is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(2.) Petitioner is a pharmaceutical company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical and nutraceutical products. It has its corporate office at Nariman Point in Mumbai. By letter of appointment dtd. 21/8/1990, Respondent was appointed as Medical Representative w.e.f. 21/8/1990. He was posted at Sriganganagar (Rajasthan). He continued to function at Sriganganagar (Rajasthan). By transfer order dtd. 21/11/2019 issued by the Petitioner from its Corporate Office at Mumbai, Respondent was transferred from Sriganganagar Headquarters to Shahjahanpur (Uttar Pradesh) citing the reason of de-growth of Headquarters at Sriganganagar making it unviable because of which the Management had decided to close the headquarters for business reasons. Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No.374/2019 under Sec. 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) read with Item-4(F) of Schedule-II and Item Nos.3, 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule-IV thereof before the Industrial Court, Mumbai challenging the transfer order dtd. 21/11/2019. It appears that though application for interim relief was filed by the Respondent in his Complaint, no interim injunction was granted by the Industrial Court. Respondent also did not join duties at the transferred place. By chargesheet dtd. 5/10/2018, domestic enquiry was initiated against him for remaining unauthorisedly absent. By order dtd. 24/12/2020, Respondent was dismissed from service. The dismissal order is subject matter of separate Complaint (ULP) No. 40/2021 filed before the First Labour Court, Mumbai under MRTU & PULP Act, which is pending.

(3.) In Complaint (ULP) No.374/2019 challenging the transfer order, Petitioner filed an application raising objection of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint by Industrial Court, Mumbai constituted under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act. Petitioner insisted that the objection of jurisdiction be decided as a preliminary issue. Petitioner also filed an application seeking dismissal of the complaint contending that the same was rendered infructuous on account of Respondent's dismissal from service. Respondent however insisted that Complaint (ULP) No. 374/2019 be decided on merits as transfer order is the root cause for dismissal. By order dtd. 4/5/2022, the Industrial Court has rejected Petitioner's objection of jurisdiction. Order dtd. 4/5/2022 is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Instead of challenging the order dated