LALBHAI TRICUMLAL MILLS LTD Vs. MANUBHAI MOTILAL VIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises a rather interesting question as to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to try A certain industrial dispute. The facts are very brief. Opponent 5 was employed by the petitioner mills in their branch office in Bombay and his services were terminated on 27-8-1953, when the branch office was closed, lie wrote to the registered office of the mills in Ahmedabad complaining, of his dismissal and claiming to be reinstated. No reply was sent to this letter and respondent 5 filed an application before the Labour Court for reinstatement and compensation. A point was raised by the petitioner that the Labour Court at Bombay had no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the application made by respondent 5, and the Labour Court made a reference to the Industrial Court under Section 81, Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and the Industrial Court has held that the Bombay Labour Court had jurisdiction. It is against that decision that the petitioner has come on this petition.

(2.) Now, under Section 9 the State Government is empowered to constitute one or more Labour Courts Slaving jurisdiction in such local areas as may be specified in such notification, and a Labour Court has been constituted under this section for Bombay; and under Section 77 it is again emphasised that the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Courts shall extend to the local areas for which they are constituted. But neither S. 9 nor S. 77 throws any light as to what is the jurisdiction in retation to the subject-matter. Both Section 9 and Section 77 deal with the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts, but what we have to consider is In respect of what matters arising within that territorial jurisdiction the Labour Court has been empowered to dispose of application filed before it.

(3.) What is pninted out by Mr. Bhagwati on bohalf of the petitioner is that S. 78 of the Act pro vides: