Delhi High Court - Orders
J Balaji vs M/S The Hindu & Anr on 1 December, 2021
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU
JOSHI
Signing Date:03.12.2021 15:17:11
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13561/2021
J BALAJI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. Varsha
Sharma, Ms. Meghna De, Mr. Archit
& Ms. L. Gangmei, Advocates (M-
9811142757)
versus
M/S THE HINDU & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate for R-1
(M-9868066879)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 01.12.2021
1. This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.
2. The Petitioner challenges the impugned Award dated 27th August, 2019, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court XIX, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi, by which the Labour Court has dismissed the Petitioner's claim relating to a challenge to his termination by the Respondents, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
3. The brief background is that the Petitioner was appointed as a journalist in the Respondent-Publication with effect from 15th June 2006. He was posted at Vishakhapatnam, as a Special Correspondent. Thereafter, he was, on his request, transferred to Delhi with effect from 16th June, 2008. He continued to work in Delhi until 2014. On 3rd February, 2014 he was transferred to Chennai and was directed to join services in Chennai 15th February 2014. He had made several representations to the Respondents that W.P.(C) 13561/2021 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:03.12.2021 15:17:11 he would be unable to move to Chennai, however, he did join the Chennai office on 2nd May 2014, albeit under protest. Thereafter he sought leave from 12th May 2014 to 31st May 2014, which was approved only till 20th May 2014 by the Respondents. He, however, reported to duty only on 30th May 2014. Thereafter, another request for leave was tendered by the Petitioner, which was turned down by the Respondents. However, the Petitioner yet did not report to work, post which his services were finally terminated on 3th July 2014. He challenged the said termination before the Labour Court in Delhi, which has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The Labour Court has held that it does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute.
4. Mr. Jawahar Raja, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, relies upon the fact that there is no inconvenience caused to the Respondent if the Labour Court in Delhi hears and adjudicates the dispute. He relies upon the cross- examination of Managements' witness which shows that there are more than 170 employees of the Respondent in Delhi. He further relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bikash Bhushan Ghosh & Ors v. Novartis India Ltd & Anr, (2007) 5 SCC 591, to show that if there is some nexus in the place where the claim is filed by the Workman and the cause of termination, the appropriate Court in the said place can assume jurisdiction of the said dispute.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, ld. Counsel for the Respondent, who appears on advance notice, relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Dharambir Singh v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and Anr., 2015 LLR 1136, to distinguish the judgment in Bikash Bhushan Ghosh (supra). He submits that the judgment in Bikash Bhushan Ghosh W.P.(C) 13561/2021 Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:03.12.2021 15:17:11 (supra) was rendered in a case where the Workman had not joined office at the place of transfer, and had challenged the transfer order. In the present case, the Workman had joined and reported at Chennai and he has not challenged the transfer order. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order does not deserve to be interfered with.
6. Issue notice. Mr. Gupta, ld. Counsel accepts notice. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, thereto if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. Let the records of the Labour Court in LCA No. 07/16 titled J. Balaji v. The Hindu and ors., be requestioned before the next date.
7. In the meantime, considering the fact that the Workman had his own family and personal commitments due to the illness of his father and the fact that his wife and children all are based in Delhi, the dispute seems to have arisen because of the transfer order which according to the Workman was completely inconvenient for him. The Workman was a journalist in the Respondent -Publication and had served with the Respondent from 2006 till 2014. Considering that there was no other grievance against the Workman, it is deemed appropriate to refer the matter to mediation to explore the possibility of amicable resolution of the dispute.
8. Accordingly, parties to join mediation proceedings under the aegis of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, to explore amicable resolution of the disputes on 21st December 2021, at 2:00 P.M. In the said mediation proceedings, the Respondent shall be duly represented by a person competent to take decisions. The said mediation proceedings shall be held in person or virtually, as per the convenience of ld. Mediator and the parties. The mediation centre to send its report to the Court before the next date.
W.P.(C) 13561/2021 Page 3 of 4Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:03.12.2021 15:17:11
9. List before the Court on 21st March, 2022.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
DECEMBER 1, 2021 Rahul/Ak W.P.(C) 13561/2021 Page 4 of 4