TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Vs. MEMBER INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTION whether the Industrial Court functioning under section 7 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the act of 1971") has territorial jurisdiction to try the U. L. P. (Complaint) filed before it by present respondent working in its jurisdiction against the petitioner employer having its head office at Ahmadabad in Gujarat and no establishment at chandrapur.

(2.) THE petitioner has pointed out that it is a company registered under the companies Act, 1956 having its Corporate Office and Head Office at ahmadabad in Gujarat State. It is engaged in business of manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products. It has got its centres at New Delhi, mumbai, Banglore, Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata. These centres have been stated to be created in order to co-ordinate the general marketing activity and for sending/receiving the general information/documents, sending/receiving material etc. The respective Managers in-charge of those centres report to the Head Office at Ahmadabad and all decisions in relation to business of the Company including those pertaining to the administration and management of the employees, rest with registered office are taken there only. Respondent No. 2 was employed on probation on 15-5-1993 as Medical Representative and his first posting was at akola i. e. in Maharashtra State. He was confirmed in due course and on 18-4-2003 he was transferred from Akola to Chandrapur. It is not in dispute before this court that neither at Akola nor at Chandrapur the petitioner has got their establishment. On administrative grounds, the petitioner transferred respondent no. 2 from Chandrapur to Ahmadabad on 10th May, 2004. Respondent No. 2 avoided to report on duty and sent some letters. The petitioner issued him reminders and when no alternative was left, the petitioner served upon him a charge sheet-cum-inquiry notice on 24-6-2004. The inquiry was scheduled to take place at Ahmadabad and was accordingly completed by the petitioner at ahmadabad. On 3-8-2004 the petitioner forwarded to respondent No. 2 by post, the copy of inquiry proceedings, which he received on 6th August 2004. Thereafter he appeared for further inquiry on 21 -9-2004 and requested for grant of adjournment. The inquiry proceeded further, signature of respondent No. 2 was obtained on inquiry proceedings and thereafter on llth October, 2004 he filed U. L. P. (Complaint) No. 118/2004 invoking Items 9 and 10 of the Schedule iv of the Act of 1971. He sought relief in relation to the inquiry proceedings contending that the Inquiry Officer had not acted impartially and the employee was not given necessary opportunity. Along with the complaint, he also moved an application under section 30 (2) for grant of interim relief and sought stay of his termination from the service. The petitioner appeared before the Industrial court at Chandrapur filed their reply and raised objection about territorial jurisdiction pointing out that they have no establishment at Chandrapur and that the events complained of occurred only at Ahmadabad. The Industrial Court granted interim protection to respondent No. 2 and framed preliminary issue at exhibit 21 to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute. After hearing the parties, it passed the impugned order on 4th February 2005 holding that it possessed necessary territorial jurisdiction. The said order has been questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition. This Court on 16-3-2005 has stayed the proceedings in ULP (Complaint) No. 118/2004.

(3.) IT is in this background that I have heard Advocate Modak for the petitioner, Advocate Gosavi for respondent No. 2 and the learned AGP for respondent No. 1.