Orissa High Court
Bijay Kumar Mishra vs The Presiding Officer on 13 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 17490 of 2017
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
---------------------
Bijay Kumar Mishra ........ Petitioner
-Versus-
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Sambalpur & another ........ Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Pani, Advocate
For Opp.Parties : Mr. Prasanta Kumar Jena,
Advocate for O.P.No.2
------------------
P R E S E N T:
HE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
Date of hearing: 13.07.2023 Date of judgment: 13.07.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biswanath Rath, J The writ petition involve a challenge to the impugned
order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No. 9 of 2016.
2. The background of the case appears to be the petitioner having
typing skill was appointed by opposite party-Management on
1.4.1998 under the terms and conditions Annexure-1. While the
petitioner was continuing as typist the management considering his
2
expertise promoted the petitioner to the post of Accounts Assistant
with effect from 1.4.2008 and posted in its operation unit at Joda.
Copy of order of promotion appears to be dated 31.3.2008 vide
Annexue-2. While working as such, the petitioner got a
communication vide Annexure-3 dated 21.5.2015 transferring the
petitioner from Joda branch to its Porbandar branch in
Administrative Assistant with effect from Ist June, 2015. On the
petitioner resisting such transfer, in a development at the instance
of the management, proceeding was initiated against the petitioner
based on a charge-sheet being framed, petitioner was subjected to
termination. Alleging illegal termination, petitioner brought a dispute
before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur under the
provisions of section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
questioning illegal termination and requesting therein for a direction
for re-instatement in service with full back wages. Workman-
petitioner in its statement of claim while reiterating the aforesaid
developments, submitted his objection to the refusal of engagement
of the termination order involve herein. There is further disclosure
by the workman that even though such resistance was brought
before the District Labour Officer and the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, none of them gave any outcome compelling workman
to take shelter of the Labour Court. First party management on its
appearance in the industrial adjudication I.D. Case No. 9 of 2016
while resisting the claim of the petitioner, contended that there is
good ground in terminating the services of the petitioner and that
too after entering into disciplinary proceeding providing opportunity
to the petitioner-Management also took stand petitioner not joining
the transferred place, amounted to misconduct and violation of
conditions in the conditions of service. The management also
3
challenged entertainability of the dispute on the premises of
jurisdiction based on the transfer order particularly keeping in view
that the petitioner since was transferred to Porbandar and
therefore, contended the cause of action lie within Maharashtra and
not Odisha.
3. Parties also advanced their evidence in the industrial
adjudication. Considering the contentions, plea of the parties and on
examination of evidence vide impugned award (Annexue-12), Labour
Court, Sambalpur has come to dismiss Section 2(A)2 on the ground
of jurisdiction along. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this
Court on reiteration of the factual narration and developments
taking place only the petitioner was thrown out of service. Taking
this Court to the developments through Annexure-2 as well as
Annexure-3, contended that promotion order as well as transfer
order being issued at Joda in the State of Odisha coming within
jurisdiction of Labour Court, Sambalpur, petitioner resisting such
transfer cause of action if any, directly related to cause of action
taking place at Joda branch office and within the clear jurisdiction of
the Labour Court, Sambalpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner
claims the impugned order (Annexure-12) should be interfered and
set aside and as an outcome, the matter should be remitted back to
the Labour Court, Sambalpur for adjudication of the dispute therein.
Shri Jena, learned counsel appearing for the management, however,
not disputing on the issue of original appointment order along with
orders at Annexures-3 and 4 being issued from Joda office and
petitioner is resisting while continuing in service at Joda, however,
taking this Court, plea of management through the written
statement in the forum below, taking this court to the conditions of
4
service emanated through Annexure-2 contended though the
petitioner consenting to the jurisdiction of Maharashtra contended
that there is right decision of the industrial adjudicator through
Annexure-3 issued Joda office.
4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court
while finding petitioner's appointment was in the operational unit of
Joda and the management placed at Joda, his promotion also made
in the office of Joda. Even though this Court find the head office
management establishment situates at Mumbai, Maharashtra but
the operational jurisdiction of the petitioner remain in the office of
Joda. There has been several correspondence being issued from the
office of Joda at different point of time. Petitioner also submitted his
resistance in the Joda office. Further the objection raised by the
learned counsel for the management through provision of clause 17
of Annexure-2 which is quoted herein below :
17. Breach of contract and jurisdiction
i.Any act on your part which may adversely
affect the Company's interests may lead to the immediate
termination of your services and the company reserves the
right to proceed against you under the law of the land.
ii.In the event that any provision herein shall be
determined to be void or unenforceable in whole or in partly
by reason of the area, duration or type or scope of matter
covered by the said provision then the said provision shall
be given effect to in the reduced form as may be decided by
any court of competent jurisdiction.
iii.Your employment contract and all terms are
governed from the Corporate Office of the Company at
Mumbai. Therefore, in the event of any dispute/differences
relating to this appointment or termination thereof, the
jurisdiction will be of the courts in Mumbai."
5
There is, however, no dispute that petitioner remaining absent
invited a disciplinary proceeding, he was charge-sheeted here at
Joda, enquiry officer also belonged to Odisha, the proceeding also
concluded in termination of service of the petitioner in the State of
Odisha.
5. Keeping in view the rival contentions, this Court find the
law on the issue of jurisdiction has been clear by observing there
cannot be enforcing jurisdiction on a party. Further for the clear
disclosure herein above, the right from employment till transfer,
involving petitioner are taking place in the Joda office.
6. In the circumstances, this Court finds it is wrong to observe
that there is absolutely no cause of action in the State of Odisha.
Law is very well settled observing even a part of cause of action
also can bring the jurisdiction to a Court or authority in this
State. To add to it this Court also finds since this a labour
dispute under the provisions of the I.D. Act, section 2(A)2 the
appropriate Government is also state of Odisha. In the above
background this Court find there has been wrong appreciation of
the issue involving jurisdiction with the Labour Court involve
herein. This Court while declaring finding and observation in
taking up the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Sambalpur
interfering in the award Annexure-12 in I.D. Case No. 9 of 2016
setting aside the same as there is necessity for lawful
adjudication of the dispute involve herein remits the matter back
to the learned Labour Court, Sambalpur for giving a lawful
disposal to the dispute at hand. This Court further direct both
the parties to appear before the Labour Court, Sambalpur along
with judgment of this Court on 20.07.2023 to take further
6
instruction on the further proceeding involving the dispute
involve herein.
The writ petition succeeds but in the circumstances, there
is no order as to costs.
...........................
Biswanath Rath, J.
M.S.Sahoo, J. I agree.
........................
M.S.Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 13th July, 2023/dutta
