Sh.Pulender vs M/S Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2791 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of decision: 24th May, 2011.

+                         W.P.(C) 12278/2009

       SH.PULENDER                                          ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr. Raj Kumar Mann, Advocate.

                                     Versus

    M/S DHARAM PAL PREM CHAND LTD.           ..... Respondent
                 Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may                      No
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?               No

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported              No
       in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner workman impugns the award dated 6th May, 2009 of

the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:-

"Whether Sh. Pulender S/o Sh. Hari Lal is absenting from his duties unauthorizedly or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, if so, to what sum of money as monetary

relief along with other consequential benefits in terms of existing Laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

holding that the Industrial Adjudicator has no territorial jurisdiction to

entertain the said industrial dispute.

2. Notice of the petition was issued.

3. The matter was listed last on 10th May, 2011 when the counsel for the

respondent employer sought time to file counter affidavit. Attention of the

counsel for the respondent employer was however invited to Raj Kumar

Jaiswal v. Rangi International Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (113) DRJ 620 and to

Mahipal Singh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III (170) 2010

DLT 130 laying down that the Industrial Adjudicator has no jurisdiction to

decide the reference on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction unless the

question of territorial jurisdiction is also referred to the Industrial

Adjudicator. It was also held in the said judgment that the existence of the

Head Office of the employer at Delhi would also show that no prejudice

would be caused to the employer by the matter being entertained at Delhi.

4. The counsel for the respondent employer had sought time to consider.

5. The counsel for the respondent employer has not been able to

controvert the aforesaid position in law. It is even otherwise not in dispute

that the Head Office of the respondent employer is at Delhi and the

petitioner workman was appointed at Delhi and was working at Delhi and

only thereafter transferred to Noida, Ghaziabad, U.P.

6. Accordingly, the award under challenge cannot be sustained and is

quashed/set aside and the matter remanded to the Industrial Adjudicator for

decision afresh in accordance with law. The parties to appear before the

Industrial Adjudicator on 29th July, 2011.

The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 24, 2011 bs..