Lalita W/O Vijay Bansod vs Maha. State Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2997 Bom

                                                     1                                          2.WP.320-2023.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 320 OF 2023
                     ( Sou. Lalita w/o Vijay Bansod
                                    Vs.
     Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bhandara, Thr. Its
                         Divisional Controller )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                           Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. Sanjay A. Nerkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                                  Mr. Yohan Chougule, Advocate h/f Mr. Rohan R. Chhabra, Advocate for
                                  the Respondent.



                                  CORAM:       AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 27th MARCH, 2023

Heard Mr. Nerkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chougule, learned counsel holding for Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petition questions the judgment of the learned Labour Court Bhandara dated 07.10.2022, whereby the preliminary issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court at Bhandara, has been answered in the negative and the complaint has been dismissed on this ground and by invoking the powers under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint has been returned for presentation to the Labour Court Gondia (page 18). Revision there against has been dismissed by the learned Industrial Court vide its judgment dated 09.12.2022 (page 32).

2 2.WP.320-2023.odt

3. It is contended, that the incident had happened at Paniajob, when the bus was travelling from Dongargarh to Paniajob and the Line Checking Staff at Paniajob found one passenger travelling without ticket. It is not in dispute, that Paniajob is situated within Bhandara District. The learned Labour Court, Bhandara in para 2 of its judgment records, that the enquiry was initiated at Bhandara, where the charge-sheet was also given and the entire proceedings of enquiry were conducted at Bhandara, the impugned show cause notice of dismissal was issued by the Divisional Office at Bhandara. Inspite of noting this, merely because the petitioner was working at Tirora, it has been held that the Labour Court at Bhandara would not have any territorial jurisdiction. The learned Industrial Court in revision has followed the suit.

4. When the incident which has given rise to the cause of action has arise in the Bhandara District as recorded by the Labour Court in its judgment dated 07.10.2022 (para 2 page 13) and so also the initiation of the enquiry ; the conduct of the enquiry ; the issuance of the impugned show cause notice of dismissal, all was done at Bhandara, merely because the petitioner /complainant was working at Tirora, that would not take away the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court to entertain the complaint at Bhandara. The reliance on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another, (2004) 6 SCC 254, is clearly misplaced in the aforesaid facts of the matter, in view of which, the

3 2.WP.320-2023.odt

judgment dated 07.10.2022 (page 12) of the learned Labour Court, Bhandara as well as the judgment of the learned Industrial Court, Bhandara dated 09.12.2022 (page 19) are hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that the learned Labour Court at Bhandara have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

5. The Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms and the learned Labour Court Bhandara is directed to proceed with the complaint.

JUDGE SD. Bhimte