Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. By order dated 06.06.2003, the petitioner was transferred from Vapi to Eutectic Section, Silchar. The petitioner's services came to be terminated while at Silchar w.e.f. 7/10/2005. This order of termination was challenged by filing complaint of unfair labour practice ('complaint' for short) before the Labour Court at Mumbai under section 28 read with items 1(a), (b), (d) (e) & (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('the Act of 1971' for short).
6. Before the Labour Court, Respondent raised objection that as order of termination takes effect at Silchar spb/ 17wp3517-16.odt where the petitioner was working and as the cause of action has arisen at Silchar the Labour Court at Mumbai will not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. This objection of the respondent was upheld by the Labour Court.
The subsequent order by which the petitioner was transferred from Vapi to Silchar is also issued from Mumbai Head Office.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invites my attention to the termination order dated 21.09.2015 which has reference to the letter of contract of employment dated 26.07.1995. This letter further mentions that services of Petitioner stands terminated w.e.f. 21.09.2005. Learned counsel would submit that even this order of termination was issued by the Head Office at Mumbai. It is his submission that, as termination order issued from Mumbai office which refers to the original contract of the employment dated 26.07.1995 which was also executed at the Mumbai Office read with spb/ 17wp3517-16.odt Clause 14 is sufficient to demonstrate that part of cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandram vs. Garware Polyster Limited reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 1077 to contend that even the Labour Court at Mumbai will have territorial jurisdiction as termination is effected from the office of employer situated in the territorial jurisdiction of such Labour Court.

31. In the present case, situs of employment would be material, in as much as, it is only that the order of termination of services of the petitioner is issued from the Head Office at Mumbai, but at the time of termination of the services, the petitioner was working at Silchar. The order of termination was to operate at Silchar. The Respondent company is having an establishment at Silchar. In my opinion, merely because the order of termination is issued from the Head Office at Mumbai, would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the spb/ 17wp3517-16.odt Labour Court at Mumbai to try and entertain complaint of unfair labour practices filed by the petitioner at Mumbai.