NANDRAMversusM/S. GARWARE POLYSTER LTD.

                            [2016) 2 S.C.R. 672



A                              NAN DRAM
                                     v.
                    MIS. GARWARE POLYSTER LTD.
                      (Civil Appeal No. 1409 of2016)
B                          FEBRUARY 16, 2016
    [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.f
         Jurisdiction: Service law - Appointment of appellant by
    respondent as boiler attendant in the Company at Aurangabad -
    By proceedings, transferred to Pondicherry - Termi11atio11 from
c   service 011 accou11t of closure of u11it at Po11dicherry - Registered
    office of the company at Aurangabad and the decisio11 to close the
    establishme11t at Po11dicherry take11 at Aura11gabad - Complai11t
    before Labour Court at A urangabad, dismissed for lack of
    jurisdiction - Held: Labour Court at Aura11gabad is well within its
D   jurisdiction to co11sider the complaint filed by the appel/a/1/.
         Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. The appellant was employed by the Company in
  Aurangabad, he was only transferred to Pondicberry, the decision
  to close down the unit at Pondicberry was taken by the Company
E
  at Aurangabad and consequent upon that decision only the
  appellant was terminated. Therefore, it cannot be said that there
  is no cause of action at all in Aurangabad. The decision to
  terminate the appellant having been taken at Aurangabad
  necessarily part of the cause of action has arisen at Aurangabad.
F Labour Court, Pondicherry is within its jurisdiction to consider
  the case of the appellant, since he has been terminated while
  be was working at Pondicherry. But that does not mean that
  Labour Court in Aurangabad within whose jurisdiction the
  Management is situated and where the Management has taken
  the decision to close down the unit at Pondicherry and pursuant
G
  to which the appellant was terminated from service also does
  not have the jurisdiction. In the facts of this case both the
  Labour Courts have the jurisdiction to deal witl1 the matter.
  (Para SJ [674-B-Ej

H
                                     672
         NANDRAM v. MIS. GARWARE POLYSTER LTD.                                  673



       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1409 of                    A
2016
      From the Judgment and Order dated 07.06.2011 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side Bench at Aurangabad in Writ
Petition No. 4968 of2009.
       Manoj Swarup, Ajay Kumar, Ms. Prerna Mann for the Appellant.              B

       T. K. Prabhakaran, Deepak Prabhakaran, Gopal Jain for the
Respondent.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       KURIAN, J. I . Leave granted.                                             c
     2. The appellant was employed by the respondent initially as Boiler
Attendant in the year 1983 in the Company in Aurangabad. Thereafter
he was promoted as Junior Supervisor in the year 1987 and worked in
the Aurangabad plant only. In the year 1995, he was again promoted as
Senior Supervisor and continued in Aurangabad. However, by proceedings           D
dated 21.10.2000, the appellant was transferred to Silvasa in Gujarat.
By another order dated 20.12.200 I he was transferred from Silvasa to
Pondicherry. While so, by proceeding dated 12.04.2005, appellant was
terminated from service w.e.f. 15.04.2005 on account ofclosure of the
establishment at Pondicherry. It is not in dispute that the registered office
                                                                                  E
of the Company is in Aurangabad and the decision to close the
establishment at Pondicherry was taken by the Company at Aurangabad.
     3. Aggrieved by the termination, appellant moved the Labour Court
atAurangabad in complaint ULPNo.56 of2005. Despite the objection
taken by the respondent that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction, the
                                                                                  F
Court held in favour of the complainant.
      4. Aggrieved, the respondent-Company took up the matter before
the Industrial Court at Aurangabad in revision. The Industrial Court at
Aurangabad vide order dated 04.07.2009 set aside the order passed by
the Labour Court and dismissed the complaint of the appellant holding
that the Labour Court at Aurangabad did not have territorial jurisdiction        G
to entertain the complaint of the appellant, since the termination took
place at Pondicherry. The appellant moved the High Court of Judicature
of Bombay atAurangabad in Writ Petition No. 4968 of2009. The High
Court by judgment dated 07.06.2011 affirmed the view taken by the
Industrial Court and held that the situs of employment of the appellant          H
674             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 2 S.C.R.


A     being Pondicherry, the Labour Court at Aurangabad did not have territorial
      jurisdiction to go into the complaint filed by the appellant. Thus aggrieved,
      the appellant is before this Court.
            5. Though, the learned counsel on both sides had addressed in detail
      on several issues, we do not think it necessarY to go into all those aspects
 B    mainly because in our view they are only academic. In the background
      of the factual matrix, the undisputed position is that the appellant was
      employed by the Company in Aurangabad, he was only transferred to
      PondicherrY, the decision to close down the unit at PondicherrY was
      taken by the Company at Aurangabad and consequent upon that decision
      only the appellant was terminated. Therefore, it cannot be said that there
 c    is no cause of action at all in Aurangabad. The decision to terminate the
      appellant having been taken atA.urangabad necessarily part of the cause
      of action has arisen at Aurangabad. We have no quarrel that Labour
      Court, PondicherrY is within its jurisdiction to consider the case of the
      appellant, since he has been terminated while he was working at
 D    Pondicherry. But that does not mean that Labour Court in Aurangabad
      within whose jurisdiction the Management is situated and where the
      Management has taken the decision to close down the unit at Pondicherry
      and pursuant to which the appellant was terminated from service also
      does not have the jurisdiction. In the facts of this case both the Labour
      Courts have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Hence, the Labour
 E    Court at Aurangabad is well within its jurisdiction to consider the complaint
      filed by the appellant. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the
       High Court and the Industrial Court atAurangabad and restore the order
       passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad though for different reasons.
           6. The Labour Court shall consider the complaint on merits and
 F    pass final orders within six months from today. The parties are directed
      to appear before the Labour Court on 08.03.2016.
           7. It is made clear that all other contentions regarding the jurisdiction
      on other aspects in terms of the Maharashtra Recognition ofTrade Union
      and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 are left open since
 G    such questions do not arise in the factual matrix of the present case.
           8. The appeal is allowed to the above extent with no order as to
      costs.
      Devika Gujral                                                  Appeal allowed.

 H