Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Section 12 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Nandram vs M/S Garware Polyster Ltd on 16 February, 2016
13. Very recently in the case titled as Nand Ram Vs. Garware
Polyster Limited (2016) 6 SCC 290, the workman was
employed in the year 1983 by the Management in Aurangabad;
he was transferred to Silvassa (Gujarat) on 21.10.2000; by
another order dated 20.12.2001 he was transferred from
Silvassa to Pondicherry; due to closure of the unit at
Pondichery, his services were terminated on 15.04.2005 and the
decision to close down the unit at Pondicherry was taken by the
management company at Aurangabad. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that since the decision to terminate the service
had been taken at Aurangabad, necessarily part of the cause of
the action has arisen at Aurangabad. As a result, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has further held that since the services of the
appellant was terminated while he was working at Pondicherry,
the Labour Court at Pondicherry had jurisdiction to consider the
case and that does not mean that the Labour Court in
Aurangabad within whose jurisdiction the management is
situated and decision was taken to close down the unit at
Pondicherry and pursuant to which the appellant was terminated
from the services also did not have the jurisdiction.
Raj Kumar Jaiswal vs Rangi International Pvt. Ltd. on 27 October, 2009
14. A single Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Rangi
International Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (113) DRJ 620 has held that
industrial dispute arises at the place where the employer is
exercising effective control and the State Government having
jurisdiction over the place from which the employer exercises
effective control would have jurisdiction to make the reference.
It was also observed that in the absence of any prejudice being
shown to have suffered by the employer in contesting the
proceedings in Delhi, the plea of territorial jurisdiction cannot
be permitted to be taken especially in the matters relating to
Industrial Disputes Act which is a social welfare legislation.
D.P. Maheshwari vs Delhi Admn. & Ors on 14 September, 1983
19. Here, it will not be out of place to refer the judgment of the
Apex Court in D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration
(1983) 4 SCC 293 wherein the Apex Court has held that the
Tribunals particularly those entrusted with the task of
adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery
and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in
dispute at the same time without trying some of them as
preliminary issues.
Paritosh Kumar Pal vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 15 February, 1984
5. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent/management that there is no infirmity in the findings
of the Industrial Adjudicator which is a well reasoned one. He
has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court
in Paritosh Kumar Pal Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, 1984,
Lab.IC 1254 wherein it was held that situs of the employment
of the workman would be a relevant factor to determine the
territorial jurisdiction of the Industrial Adjudicator. He
submitted that since the petitioner was posted in Noida and
removed from his services while being posted there, the
Government of NCT of Delhi had no jurisdiction to refer any
industrial dispute. He submits that the Head Office of the
Management was in Bombay and they have the corporate office
in Delhi and since the termination of the services of the
petitioner became effective in Noida, Labour Court in Delhi had
no jurisdiction and the NCT of Government of Delhi could not
have made the reference.