Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Counsel submits that although the Industrial Disputes Act is silent on the issue of territorial jurisdiction with regard to the competence of the appropriate Government to make a reference of the industrial dispute and the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the proceedings under the Act, but nevertheless the general principles and the value of tests underlying the jurisdiction of the Civil Court are not entirely alien to the matter in question for an appropriate Government to have jurisdiction to make a reference under the Act and at least some cause of action would have accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of that Government which would confer it with a right to refer the matter under the Act. The basic principles which will determine the jurisdiction have been culled out on consideration of the law on this issue by a Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Paritosh Kumar Pal vs. State of Bihar and others, 1984 Labour Industrial Cases 1254. The said judgment and the principles are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Counsel further relies upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pritam Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh and another, 2004 (3) RSJ 726, to contend that the appropriate Government would have territorial jurisdiction to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act where the substantial cause of action arises in a territory in relation to the dispute. Reliance has further been made to a Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt.Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal and others, 2005 (II) LLJ 333, as also on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bikash Bhushan Ghos & Ors. vs. M/s.Novartis India Limited & Anr, JT 2007 (6) SC 432.

Now coming to the submission of the counsel for the Management wherein he asserts that the Labour Court should have refrained itself from returning findings on issues No.2 to 4 in the light of the finding recorded by the Court that it did not have the jurisdiction to try the case due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of the appropriate Government to make a reference. Counsel for the Management relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Athmanathaswami Devasthanam vs. K.Gopalaswami Ayyangar, AIR 1965 (SC) 338 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the Court comes to a conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the case, the Court cannot decide any question on merits. On this basis, he submits that the findings recorded on issues No.2 to 4 by the Labour Court deserve to be set aside and in any case, since the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that it did not have the jurisdiction to try the case, it should have left it open to the Court which has the territorial jurisdiction to determine the said issues.

On the other hand, counsel for the workman submits that the Labour Court had no option but to record its findings. He submits that once a reference has been made, then all issues which arise, whether jurisdictional or on merits, must be decided together. He submits that it is the discretion of the Court whether to treat the issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and decide it first or to proceed and decide the case as a whole. On this basis, counsel submits that the Labour Court has rightly returned its findings on issues No.2 to 4. While going into and deciding the case on merits, no fault can be found with the approach of the Labour Court in proceeding to decide the other issues also along with the issue of territorial jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, he relies upon a Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Swarup Vegetable Product Industries Limited vs. Labour Court-II, Meerut, 1998 (2) SCT 158 as also a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Escorts Mahila Ltd. Bahadurgarh, Patiala vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, 2002 (3) SCT 581. He further relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.P.Maheshwari vs. Delhi Administration and others, AIR 1984 SC 153, to contend that the preliminary issues, if taken up by the Labour Court, cannot be allowed to be misused by resorting to the remedy under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India to delay the process of decision on merits.

In the present case, since the Court dealing with the matter is a Labour Court and it has come to a conclusion that the Government of Punjab did not have the territorial jurisdiction to make a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it did not have the jurisdiction to try the case. The Labour Court ought not to have proceeded to decide the other issues on merits, rather should have left it open for the workman to seek his remedy before the appropriate Government, if he so chose. The principle as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Athmanathaswami Devasthanam's case, (supra) would be applicable to the present case and, therefore, the findings returned by the Labour Court on issues No.2 to 4 cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside.