Shyam Sunder Seth vs S.M. Limaye, President, ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 391 Bom

JUDGMENT

Nishita Mhatre, J.

1. This petition has been filed against the order of the Labour Court at Mumbai dated 15.12.1995 and the order of the Revisional Court dated 6.3.1996. Both the Courts have held that the Labour Court at Mumbai constituted under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971 has no jurisdiction to try the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2. According to both the courts below, either the Labour Court at Kolkata where the Respondent No. 2 had its Head office or the Labour Court at Ahmedabad would have jurisdiction to try the dispute between the parties.

2. The Petitioner was employed with Respondent No. 2 company sometime in 1973. The Petitioner was required to work not only for Respondent No. 2 but also for M/s. Hindustan Safety Glass works limited and M/s. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. During this period, the Petitioner worked without giving any cause for complaint to Respondent No. 2. On 12.3.1981, the Petitioner was asked to proceed to Ahmedabad to open a new depot. The Petitioner did not proceed as per the directions of the officer of M/s. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Limited, Kolkata. Therefore, a show-cause memo was issued to him by M/s. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. after a year directing him to go to Ahmedabad to open the depot. The Petitioner agreed to proceed to Ahmedabad under protest on a temporary basis keeping Mumbai as Headquarters. Accordingly, the Petitioner proceeded to Ahmedabad to open the new depot for M/s. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. The Petitioner worked in Ahmedabad from 12.3.1982 to 15.7.1982.The Petitioner then sought leave from the Kolkata head office to return to Mumbai as he was indisposed and had to settle the affairs of his family. This application for leave was made on 2.7.1982. Thereafter, the Petitioner sought extension of his leave by a letter dated 17.8.1982. On 25.8.1982, the Petitioner was called upon to return to Ahmedabad as the company had rented a flat for him in Ahmedabad after he had agreed to be transferred to Ahmedabad. Despite all these letters, the Petitioner refused to return to Ahmedabad. Accordingly, a show-cause memo was issued to him in October, 1982 to which the Petitioner replied stating that he was not expected to go to Ahmedabad as he had agreed to proceed to that city in March 1982 only on a temporary basis and, therefore, the entire show-cause notice ought to be withdrawn. Not being satisfied with the explanation given by the Petitioner, his services were terminated by a letter dated 6.6.1983. Being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 6.6.1983, the Petitioner filed complaint under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act on 5.9.1983. Respondent No. 2 resisted the complaint by filing their written statement stating that the Labour Court in Mumbai had no jurisdiction to try the complaint as the cause of action had arisen in Ahmedabad. This complaint was allowed by the Labour Court. Aggrieved by this, Respondent No. 2 challenged the order in the complaint by filing Revision Application (ULP) No. 88 of 1995. The Industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Court and remanded the proceedings back to the Labour Court for a fresh hearing. A writ Petition preferred by the Petitioner challenging the order in the Revision Application was rejected. The complaint was then decided afresh. The Labour Court framed several issues including the issue regarding jurisdiction. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to try the complaint since the cause of action had arisen in Ahmedabad and the Labour Court in Mumbai would have no jurisdiction to try the complaint. Moreover, it was held that since the Court in Mumbai had no jurisdiction, the MRTU & PULP Act was not applicable.

3. Being aggrieved by this order of the Labour Court, the Petitioner preferred a Revision Application which was decided by order dated 6.3.1996. The Industrial Court confirmed the order of the Labour Court and held that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Being aggrieved by both these orders, the Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

4. On behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. Verghese submits that the cause of action had arisen in Mumbai and, therefore, the Labour Court at Mumbai had jurisdiction to try the complaint. He submits that the Petitioner proceeded to Ahmedabad only as a temporary measure. There was no practice of transferring the employees and hence, the question of the Petitioner being transferred to Ahmedabad did not arise. He further submits that on his return to Mumbai from Ahmedabad after 15.7.1992, he was served with a chargesheet in Mumbai. He replied to the same from Mumbai and therefore, it has to be presumed that he continued in employment in Mumbai. He further submits that the order of termination dated 6.6.1983 was also served on the Petitioner in Mumbai. Therefore, the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. He further submits that a bare perusal of the documents on record would indicate that he had accepted the transfer to Ahmedabad only as a temporary measure and therefore, it could not be said that he did not continue in employment in Mumbai.

5. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Rele for Respondent No. 2, that the Labour Court has concluded a jurisdictional fact which has rightly not been interfered with by the Industrial Court. He submits that the Labour Court after appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, on record had concluded that the Petitioner was transferred to Ahmedabad where he worked for four months and it was only because the Petitioner did not return for work in Ahmedabad after being on leave for some time, that Respondent No. 2 was required to take action against the Petitioner. He further submits that the action against the petitioner was taken by the Headoffice at Kolkata. Theefore, the Labour Court at Kolkata could have jurisdiction. He further submits that in any event, although the order of termination was served upon the Petitioner in Mumbai, the termination was effected on account of the Petitioner's refusal to resume duty in Ahmedabad after 15.7.1982. He submits that leave applications and applications for extension of leave were submitted by the Petitioner to the headoffice at Calcutta. Therefore, there was no reason to presume that the Petitioner continued to be in employment in the Mumbai office. In fact, the Petitioner had worked in the Ahmedabad office for four months. The cause of action had arisen because of the Petitioner's refusal to resume work in Ahmedabad and hence, the Labour Court would have jurisdiction.

6. I have perused the documents on record as well as the evidence on record and the orders impugned. The first order impugned is dated 16.8.1995. It is an order which merely remands the matter for fresh hearing before the labour Court. This order cannot be challenged in this Petition and the challenge to it has already been negatived by this Court. As regards the order of the Labour Court on remand, I find from the record that no fault could be found with the order of the Labour Court. There is ample evidence on record to indicate that the Petitioner's services had been transferred to Ahmedabad. He had refused the transfer on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, he had agreed to proceed to Ahmedabad on 12.3.1982, thereby accepting the transfer. Although the petitioner mentioned in his letter, while accepting the transfer, that he was proceeding on a temporary basis, it would not mean that Respondent No. 2 had accepted the Petitioner's contention that he was transferred only on a temporary basis. Once the Petitioner had accepted the transfer and had worked in Ahmedabad for four months, the Petitioner could not then proceed on the footing that he continued in employment in Mumbai, without there being any order transferring him back to Mumbai. Moreover, the Petitioner had requested for leave from Ahmedabad. This would indicate that the employment in Ahmedabad continued and he was only granted leave of absence on account of his ill-health and other difficulties faced by him. The contention of the Petitioner that the Labour Court at Mumbai could have jurisdiction cannot be accepted.

7. Moreover the Head Office of the Company was in Calcutta. Orders were issued to the Petitioner while he was working in Ahmedabad from the Calcutta Head Office.

8. In the Circumstances, the Labour Court at Mumbai has correctly appreciated the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and has concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. The Industrial Court has rightly confirmed this order. I see no reason to interfere with these orders impugned in the petition. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.