Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1 33 Now coming to additional issue no. 1 i.e. whether this court has got the territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present dispute. 34 The onus of this issue was upon the workman and he had to prove that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute. The management in the written statement has taken the preliminary objections that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present controversy between the parties as the workman as per his own averment was working at Kundli, District Sonepat. Initially, this issue was not framed and when the parties had concluded their evidence an application was filed by the management for framing of additional issues which application after hearing was allowed and two additional issues were framed on 4.8.12 and parties were given opportunity to inform the Court if any of the party intend to lead further evidence on the issues framed on 4.8.12. On 22.8.12 none of the party moved any application to lead additional evidence on additional issues framed and as such no further evidence was lead. The court otherwise observed that there was already sufficient evidence on the record and as such the issue is being disposed of on the basis of material available on record. 35 In cross examination WW1 admitted that unfinished goods and raw material was received, processing of the same was done and dispatching of the finished goods was done at Kundli, Sonepat till he worked with the management. He further deposed that earlier Head Office of the management was at Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi. He further deposed that all the process started at Kundli, Sonepat w.e.f. June, 2008 but all the documents were being prepared at Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi. The room where the head office of the management was situated was around 20x12 feet and there were around 21 employees working at Kundli, Sonipat. He admitted as correct that entire accounts department as well as computer, books of account prepared in due course of business is done at Kundli, Sonepat and salary disbursement was also done at Kundli, Sonepat. He admitted as correct that when he received his salary from the management, he used to sign on the register for the amount received by him towards his monthly salary.

36 The MW3 in his cross examination admitted that registration and membership certificate was issued at Delhi's address to be correct. He also admitted as correct that office of management at Netaji Subhash Place which is mentioned as in the Ex.WW1/6 and Ex.WW1/8 and the same is correct address of the management.

37 This is the entire evidence touching this issue. The necessary preposition which emerges from all this evidence is that the workman had been working at Sonepat but the Head Office of the management is at Delhi and the sole question arises whether the claimant can file the claim in the Labour Court at Delhi when the Head Office of the management is within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. The law with respect to jurisdiction is well settled.

47 I have perused the facts of the present case. Coming to the facts of this case. It is admitted proposition of fact that the workman was getting his salary from Sonepat; he was working and falling within the definition of 'workman' under section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act as he was discharging the functions of quality controller of the products which factory is at Sonepat and he filed even first complaint to the SHO Kundli, Sonepat thereby informing it that his services have been terminated from the factory which is situated at Sonepat. It is admitted fact that the management has no factory in Delhi and only the head office of the management in Delhi. There is no evidence on court record as to what work the workman was doing or supposed to do in Delhi in its head office. If he would have claimed himself to be the supervisor of the management somehow he could have claimed that he was posted in Delhi office as a supervisor but that is not the case of the workman. Therefore, as far as the effective control, salary and the assignment of the duties of the workman is concerned, it is being done at Sonepat. 48 Now coming to the arising of cause of action is concerned, it is admitted case of the workman that the workman was terminated when he was posted at Sonepat, Kundli. It is also matter of record that the first complaint after the alleged termination of the workman was filed by the workman before the SHO PS Kundli and it reads as under:­ "With due respect it is submitted that I, Vijay Kumar Sharma, s/o late Satember Sharma, r/o WZ­83/9, Garib Basti, Rama Road, New Delhi­15 had been working into the employment of M/s Intraco Impex Pvt. Ltd., Plot no.104, Phase­ IV, Kundli, Haryana as Auto Parts Engineer since 1.4.2008 on last drawn monthly salary of Rs. 15,250/­ p.m."

49 From this fact it is clear that the workman had been working at Sonepat and his job profile otherwise was of such a nature that he only could have been performed at Sonepat where the factory of the management is situated and therefore, it is clear that the employee was working for all practical purposes at Sonepat and he was terminated from services from Sonepat. He filed first complaint before SHO, Kundli against his termination by specifically mentioning that he was working at Kundli, Sonepat. As far as complaint at Delhi is concerned, it was only regarding giving him a threat of dire consequence and not regarding his termination from Sonepat Factory. Therefore, the court is of the opinion that in such circumstances, the judgment relied upon by Ld.ARW is rather helping the management as the workman has admitted that the entire cause of action has arisen in Kundli, Sonepat and the court is also of the opinion that no cause of action or any part of cause of action has ever arisen in Delhi regarding termination of the workman and accordingly the management has been able to prove that the entire cause of action has arisen at Sonepat. Therefore, the workman has failed to prove that cause of action or any part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction at Delhi mere giving appointment from Delhi office. This issue stands decided accordingly.