Bombay High Court
Kare Health Specialities Pvt. ... vs Rajan Keshavrao Gawande on 23 March, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 32 wp5626.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5626 OF 2017
Kare Health Specialities Pvt Ltd. And ors__ Vs. __Rajan Keshavrao Gawande
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.R.Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Kartik Rao, Advocate h/f Mr. M.G.Sarda, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 23/03/2023
1] Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Rao, learned counsel for
the respondent.
2] The petition questions the impugned
order dated 15.4.2015 (pg. 75) passed by the
learned Labour Court, Akola, deciding the
preliminary issue of jurisdiction in favour of the
respondent/complainant. Challenge thereto before
the learned Industrial Court in revision has also been
turned down by the judgment dated 14.6.2017
(pg.107).
3] Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that since the appointment order
of the respondent dated 23.3.2000 vide clause no.14
contemplated that the respondent/employee would
(2) 32 wp5626.17
be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts in the
State of Goa, at Margaon, and/or subject to the
jurisdiction of the Court in the metropolitan city of
Mumbai in Maharashtra, the Court at Akola would
not have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the
complaint filed by the complainant under Section 28
of the MURU and PULP Act, 1971. Reliance is placed
upon Swastik Gases Private Limited vrs. Indian Oil
Corporation Limited, (2013) 9 SCC 32 (paras 32 &
67).
4] Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the respondent was
stationed at Akola and at the time of termination of
his employment on 26.4.2007, was stationed at
Akola and therefore the learned Labour Court at
Akola would have jurisdiction, for which he placed
his reliance on Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd vrs.
Member Industrial Court Chandrapur and anr, 2009
(3) Bom.C.R. 405 (para 10) and Anil Murlidharan
vrs Larsen and Toubro Ltd., 2019 (5) Mh.L.J. 886
(para 34).
5] No doubt, that the contract of
employment, which is evinced from the appointment
letter dated 23.03.2000 confer jurisdiction upon the
(3) 32 wp5626.17
Courts at Margaon and Mumbai, however, it is also
not in dispute that on the date of his appointment,
the headquarter of the respondent was at Akola and
the respondent on the date of termination was also
working at Akola, and that would also give the
Labour Court at Akola jurisdiction to entertain and
try the complaint, as the termination was effected
within its territorial jurisdiction.
6] Though Swastik Gas Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has
been relied upon by Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel
for the petitioner, the same is under the provisions of
the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, in which the
specific position of the parties conferring jurisdiction
upon the Court as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the
A&C Act was under consideration. In matters of
employment, the same is governed by statutory
provisions and therefore, mere inclusion of a clause
in the service contract, cannot deprive the Court
within whose territorial jurisdiction, the cause of
action has arisen, from taking cognizance of the
complaint. I am in agreement to what has been
stated in para 34 in Anil Murlidharan (supra) and
para 10 of Torrent Pharmaceuticals (supra), which
hold that a mere clause in the contract of the
employment does not deprive the Labour Court
(4) 32 wp5626.17
within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of
action has arisen from entertaining the complaint. I
do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned
order. The petition is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
