Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Management contested his application vide its written statement. A preliminary objection taken by the management is to the effect that claimant was appointed at Sonepat, Haryana and was performing his duties there. It is denied that he ever worked at Delhi. It is stated that in his notices dated 28.01.1998 and 09.02.2004 sent to respondent no.3 through his advocate, he admitted that he had been working as Maintenance Engineer at G. T. Road, Vill. Rasoi, Distt. Sonepat (Haryana). The notice dated 09.02.2004 was addressed to the managing director of respondent no.3 at Village Raoi, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. Notice dated 28.01.1998 was sent to head office of the company at Chennai.

8. Workman himself admitted in para 2 of his statement of claim that was deputed to perform his duties with management no.3. Management in para 1 of preliminary objections of its reply stated that he was appointed at Sonepat, Haryana and he was performing his duties there. Management has referred to his notices dated 28.01.1998 and 09.02.2004 wherein the claimant admitted having worked as Maintenance Engineer at Sonepat, Haryana. In corresponding para of his rejoinder he has not denied the same. He has simply stated that the respondent is carrying on business at Delhi and Chennai and other states of India. It is further stated that respondent no.1 and 2 issued him appointment letter and had their head office at Delhi.

9. Workman has placed on record his notice dated 28.01.1998 addressed to the management at its office at Madras wherein he admitted that he "has been working as Maintenance Engineer at Sonepat, Haryana since 31st August 1996". Subsequent notice dated 03.11.2004 placed on record by the workman was addressed to the managing director of the respondent at Sonepat, Haryana and in the very first paragraph it is stated that "my client has worked with you on the permanent post of maintenance Engineer since his joining the duties from 31.08.1996 permanently" and in para 4 it is stated that "Inspite of that you have terminated the services of my client without any notice and holding any inquiry dt. on - 26.10.2003 which is against the principles of natural justice." It is therefore clear that the workman had worked at Sonepat and his services were terminated when he was working at Sonepat.

15. It is an admitted case that the claimant's services were terminated when he was working at Sonepat therefore cause of action arose at Sonepat office which was situs of his employment at the time of termination. Delhi has never been his situs of employment nor any part of cause of action accrued at Delhi. Therefore, this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

16. Further disputed status of the claimant as 'workman' cannot be adjudicated in proceedings U/s 33­C(2) of the Act as is evident from the following judgments :