Delhi High Court
Dharambir Singh vs M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd. And ... on 15 September, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : September 15, 2015
+ LPA 590/2009
DHARAMBIR SINGH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.S.N.Bhardwaj and
Ms.Harsha Rani, Advocates.
versus
M/S HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. AND ORS...... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Sandeep Prabhakar and
Mr.Amit Kumar, Advocates for
Respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. Dharambir Singh while working as Fitter, Grade II with respondent
No.2 management was transferred to Faridabad on October 17, 2002 due to
exigencies of work and requirements of employees at Faridabad. Though
Dharambir joined Faridabad Unit however he challenged the transfer before
this Court by way of writ petition being WP(C) No.6771/2002 which was
ultimately dismissed and the appeal against the same being LPA No.86/2005
was also dismissed vide order dated January 28, 2005. While working at
Faridabad Unit, the work at Faridabad Unit ceased to exist and the Unit
remained without production which was finally closed down on December
19, 2003. Hence Dharambir was removed from service vide letter dated
December 19, 2003. Dharambir filed an application in WP(C) No.
6771/2002 which was pending at that time on which initially a stay was
granted however finally vide order dated November 24, 2004 the same was
dismissed.
2. On a dispute being raised, an award dated September 05, 2008 was
passed by the learned Labour Court in ID No. 226/06-05 directing
reinstatement with consequential benefits and continuity of service with 40%
back wages. The award was challenged by the management before this
Court by way of writ petition being WP(C) No. 7050/2008 which was
allowed by the impugned judgment dated July 14, 2009 primarily on the
ground that the Labour Court at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to pass
the award as the workman at the time of his termination was posted at
Faridabad. The issue of jurisdiction was also raised before the learned
Labour Court however the learned Labour Court referring to the
appointment letter which was issued from Head Office at Delhi came to the
conclusion that the Government of NCT of Delhi had jurisdiction to make a
reference and it had jurisdiction to entertain the reference.
3. The view taken by learned Single Judge vide the impugned order is
based on the decision of the Supreme Court in V(2006) SLT 655Om Prakash
Srivastava Vs. Union of India followed by this Court in 143(2007) DLT
311Brahm Parkash Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2004 LLR 445 G.S.
Batra Vs. R.N. Mehrotra and 2002 LLR 407M/s DLF Universal Ltd. Vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
4. Learned counsel for Dharambir referring to the decisions reported as
AIR 1962 SC 409 Indian Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1984 SC 286
Jai Bhagwan Vs. Management of Ambala Central Co-operation Bank Ltd.,
2007 (5) SCC 591Bikash Bhushan Ghosh & Ors. Vs. Novartis India Ltd. &
Anr., 1983 (4) SCC 156 Sadhu Ram Vs. DTC, 2005 (10) SCC 675 M.P. State
Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mahendra & Ors. and AIR 1986 Gujarat 209
(FB) S.L. Mohammedbhikhan Vs. Manager Chanderbhanu Cinema contends
that the Labour Court at Delhi had jurisdiction to entertain the reference
validly made by Govt. of NCT of Delhi and hence the impugned judgment
be set aside.
5. In M.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. (supra) relied upon by learned
counsel for Dharambir, the Suprme Court did not advert to the territorial
jurisdiction and the only issue considered was that in the wake of
employment by the Corporation therein, the unit having been closed, the
services could not be terminated by the Unit but by the Corporation which
had employed the workman.
6. Supreme Court in Bikash Bhushan Ghosh (supra) applying the
principles laid under Section 20 CPC held that the State Government of the
State where part of cause of action arose would also have jurisdiction to
make a reference. The Supreme Court laid down the following principles to
determine the jurisdiction:-
"The principles for determining jurisdiction are:
(i) Where does the order of the termination of service operate?
(ii) Is there some nexus between the industrial dispute arising
from termination of the services of the workman and the
territory of the State?
(iii) The well-known test of jurisdiction of a civil court including
the residence of the parties and the subject-matter of the
dispute substantially arising therein would be applicable.
7. Supreme Court thus held that the situs of the employment of the
workman would be a relevant factor for determining the jurisdiction of the
Labour Court concerned. In the said case before the Supreme Court the
termination orders which were served at Calcutta were not the only bone of
contention but the transfer orders as well because the termination orders
were passed for not obeying the transfer orders. It was held that if the
transfer orders were set aside the appellants therein would be deemed to be
posted in Calcutta. There being a direct nexus with the termination of their
services at Calcutta it was held that State of West Bengal was the
appropriate Government.
8. In the facts of the case, reliance of learned Counsel for Dharambir on
Bikash Bhushan Ghosh (supra) is thus misconceived for the reason that in
the said case after transfer, the workmen therein did not join at the
transferred place and had challenged the transfer orders and the termination
for non-complying with the orders of transfer. Thus, termination was a
consequence of non-obeying the order of transfer.
9. In the present case the services of Dharambir were terminated much
after he was transferred to Faridabad though he had challenged the transfer
order and the said writ petition was pending, however the termination was
not on account of non-obeying the transfer order or a consequence of
transfer.
10. In 1984 Lab IC 1254 (Patna) (FB) Paritosh Kumar Pal Vs. State of
Bihar the Full Bench of Patna High Court held-
"13. Now an incisive analysis of the aforesaid authoritative
enunciation of law would indicate that three clear-cut principles or
tests for determining jurisdiction emerge, therefrom. For clarity
these may be first separately enumerated as under:
(i) Where does the order of the termination of services
operate?
(ii) Is there some nexus between the industrial dispute arising
from termination of the services of the workman and the
territory of the State?
(iii) That the well-known test of jurisdiction of a civil Court
including the residence of the parties and the subject matter
of the dispute substantially arising therein would be
applicable."
11. This Court in 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10218 VG Jagdishan Vs. M/s
Indofos Industries Ltd. & Anr. following the decision in 2008 (3) SCC 456
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee held that since the
workman was posted at Ghaziabad and his services were terminated at
Ghaziabad, the Labour Courts at Ghaziabad could only have jurisdiction to
try the case and merely because the Corporate Office of management was at
Delhi the same will not vest the Labour Court at Delhi with the territorial
jurisdiction since substantial cause of action arose at Ghaziabad. It was
noted-
"9. The issue in the present case is fully covered by the decision of
the Supreme Court reported in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (supra)
wherein the workman was employed with Eastern Coalfields Limited
in Mugma area in the district of Dhanbad, Jharkhand. His services
were terminated at Mugma however, workman filed a writ petition
before the Calcutta High Court. On a preliminary objection taken
the Calcutta High Court held that since the workman was serving at
Mugma area under the General Manager of the area which is the
State of Jharkhand, the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction. The
Supreme Court affirming the decision of the Calcutta High Court
held that entire cause of action arose in Mugma area within the State
of Jharkhand and only because the head office of the company was
situated in the State of West Bengal, the same by itself will not confer
any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court particularly when the
head office had nothing to do with the order of punishment passed
against the workman."
12. In view of the legal position noted above, we find no infirmity in the
impugned order.
13. Appeal is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER , 2015
'v mittal'
