COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. CHAIRMANCUMPRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Prohibition, restraining/prohibiting respondent No.1 i.e. Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad from proceeding with I.D.No.42 of 2013 pending on the file of respondent No.1, filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by respondent No.2.

(2.) Heard Sri S.Ramesh, counsel for petitioners, Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S.S.Prakasam, counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

(3.) It has been contended by the petitioners that the 1st petitionerCompany is incorporated under the Companies Act and the 2nd respondent was appointed as a Machine Operator by a Company called EID Parry (India) Ltd., during August, 2003. Upon amalgamation of said EID Parry (India) Ltd. with the 1st petitionerCompany on 01.12.2003, the services of 2nd respondent were to be continued with the 1st petitioner-Company without interruption. The 2nd respondent was promoted as Senior Officer (Accounts) in the officer grade during July, 2006 and he was transferred to Aurangabad and has been discharging his duties at Aurangabad. As the officers of the 1st petitioner-Company were not satisfied with the performance of 2nd respondent, several e-mails and letters dated 01.07.2010, 12.05.2011, 16.07.2012 and 27.07.2012 were issued to the 2nd respondent to improve his performance and efficiency, as the 2nd respondent was unauthorisedly absent. When the 2nd respondent has not improved his performance inspite of issuance of letters to him, left with no option, the petitioners have terminated the services of 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 9th October, 2013. It is contended by the petitioners that the said termination orders dated 9th October, 2013 were issued at Aurangabad, where, the 2nd respondent was discharging his duties. Challenging the said termination orders, the 2nd respondent, without disclosing that the termination orders were issued at Aurangabad, had filed I.D.No.42 of 2013 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the 1st respondent had entertained the said I.D. and issued notices to the petitioners. Challenging the action of respondent No.1 in entertaining I.D.No.42 of 2013 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that respondent No.1 lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the I.D. preferred by the 2nd respondent under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.