DIGAMBAR KRISHNARAO MAHAJAN Vs. CHBMOSYN PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed has been by the petitioner who claims to be a workman, against the order passed by the first labour Court at Nagpur dated 6th May 1968 in I.D.A. No. 673 of 1967 and 674 of 1967. The petitioner who was appointed as a medical representative of the respondent No 1 Chemosyn Private Limited. He had filed an application under section 33 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred to hereinafter as the Act claiming recovery of unpaid bonus for the years of his employment. The petitioner' also filed another application, being I. D. A. No. 674 of 1967, which was consolidated with I.D.A. No. 673 of 1967, wherein he claimed computation of various benefits to which he was entitled in respect of period of his employment in the said application he claimed computation of commission of sales his leave with wages etc.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 company contended before the Labour Court that the Labour Court at Nagpur had no jurisdiction to entertain these applications. According to the respondents, no cause of action for filing of these applications took place at Nagpur, and therefore, the Labour Court at Nagpur had jurisdiction to entertain the claims.

(3.) SHRI Pendsey, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended before, us that the learned Judge of the First Labour Court committed an error in construing the provisions of section 33C (2) of the Act and relying upon the various decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court which were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. According to Shri Pendsey, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so far as the claim of money or benefit is concerned, does not lay down any guidelines about the territorial jurisdiction. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that the wages were being paid to the petitioner at Nagpur. Therefore, obviously the petitioner was entitled to receive money or the benefits claimed in the application from his employer at Nagpur. No doubt it was contended on behalf of the respondents that though actual payment of money was made at Nagpur, the cheques were issued from Bombay. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to receive from his employer the money and benefits at Nagpur. In this view of the matter, according to the learned Counsel, the Labour Court at Nagpur where the petitioner was entitled to receive the money has not jurisdiction to entertain his applications under section 33C (2) of the Act. In our opinion there is much substance in this contention.