V G JAGDISHANversusM/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

                         [2022] 3 S.C.R. 61                             61


                         V G JAGDISHAN                                  A
                                 v.
             M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED
                  (Civil Appeal No. 2976 of 2022)
                          APRIL 19, 2022                                B
        [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
      Labour Laws – Territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court –
Retrenchment / termination of appellant-workman – The workman
was employed as a driver at Ghaziabad office – He was working at
                                                                        C
Ghaziabad – His services were retrenched at Ghaziabad – All
throughout during the employment, the workman stayed and worked
at Ghaziabad – After retrenchment/termination, the workman shifted
to Delhi from where he served a demand notice at Head Office of
the Management situated at Delhi – Whether the Labour Court at
Delhi had jurisdiction to try the complaint/case of appellant-          D
workman – Held: Merely because appellant-workman after
termination/ retrenchment shifted to Delhi and sent a demand notice
from Delhi and the Head Office of the Management was at Delhi, it
cannot be said that a part cause of action had arisen at Delhi –
Considering the facts that the workman was employed at Ghaziabad;
                                                                        E
was working at Ghaziabad and his services were terminated at
Ghaziabad, the facts being undisputed, only the Ghaziabad Labour
Court would have territorial jurisdiction to decide the case.
       Labour Laws – Issue touching territorial jurisdiction of the
Labour court – Procedure and manner of adjudication – Held: When
                                                                        F
the issue touches the question of territorial jurisdiction, as far as
possible the same shall have to be decided first as preliminary issue
– In the present case, the Labour Court did not commit any error in
deciding the issue with respect to the territorial jurisdiction as a
preliminary issue in the first instance.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court                                  G

     HELD: It is not much in dispute that the workman was
employed as a driver at Ghaziabad office. He was working at
Ghaziabad. His services were retrenched at Ghaziabad. All
throughout during the employment, the workman stayed and
                                                                        H
                                 61
62            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A    worked at Ghaziabad. Only after the retrenchment/termination
     the workman shifted to Delhi from where he served a demand
     notice at Head Office of the Management situated at Delhi. Merely
     because the workman after termination/retrenchment shifted to
     Delhi and sent a demand notice from Delhi and the Head Office
     of the Management was at Delhi, it cannot be said that a part
B
     cause of action has arisen at Delhi. Considering the facts that the
     workman was employed at Ghaziabad; was working at Ghaziabad
     and his services were terminated at Ghaziabad, the facts being
     undisputed, only the Ghaziabad Court would have territorial
     jurisdiction to decide the case. [Para 6.1][65-D-F]
C          Eastern Coalfields Ltd.and Ors. v. Kalyan Banerjee
           (2008) 3 SCC 456 – relied on.
           Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. v. Ande Lingaiah and Anr
           (2000) 10 SCC 294; Bikash Bhushan Ghosh and Ors.
           v. Novartis IndiaLtd. and Anr (2007) 5 SCC 591 :
D          [2007] 5 SCR 985; and Nandram v. Garware Polyster
           Limited (2016) 6 SCC 290 : [2016] 2 SCR 672 and D.P.
           Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and Ors.(1983) 4
           SCC 293 : [1983] 3 SCR 949 – held inapplicable.
                           Case Law Reference
E
     [2016] 2 SCR 672              held inapplicable        Para 4
     [2007] 5 SCR 985              held inapplicable        Para 4
     (2000) 10 SCC 294             held inapplicable        Para 4
     [1983] 3 SCR 949              held inapplicable        Para 4.1
F
     (2008) 3 SCC 456              relied on                Para 6.1
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2976
     of 2022.
           From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2015 of the High Court
G    of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA 412 of 2015.
           Mrs. V. Mohana Sr. Adv., B. Raghunath, Mrs. N.C. Kavitha,
     Vijay Kumar, Advs. for the appellant.


H
  V G JAGDISHAN v. M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED                             63


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               A
      M. R. SHAH, J.
      1. Leave granted.
        2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and
order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi          B
in Letters Patent Appeal No. 412/2015, by which the High Court has
dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – workman
and it is held that the Labour Court at Delhi would have no jurisdiction to
try the case and that the Labour Court at Ghaziabad would have
jurisdiction to try the complaint/case, the workman has preferred the
present appeal.                                                                C

       3. The dispute in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass.
The appellant herein – workman was working as a driver at Ghaziabad.
He was employed at Ghaziabad and was also working at Ghaziabad.
His services were terminated at Ghaziabad. Subsequent to his termination,
the workman shifted to Delhi. He sent a demand notice challenging his          D
termination to the head office at Delhi. Thereafter, he filed a claim before
the Conciliation Officer at Delhi. Before the Labour Court, Delhi, the
Management – respondent herein raised the objection about
maintainability of proceedings at Delhi. It was also pointed out that the
workman had already raised the same dispute before the Deputy Labour           E
Commissioner, Ghaziabad. The Labour Commissioner, Delhi proceeded
further with the complaint/conciliation proceedings. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court, Delhi. Before the Labour Court, respondent
– management raised a preliminary objection that the Labour Court,
Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction since the workman was appointed at
Ghaziabad; he was working in the factory of management – respondent            F
herein at Ghaziabad and his services were also retrenched at Ghaziabad.
It was the case on behalf of the workman that as the demand notice
was served at Head Office at Delhi, it can be said that the dispute has
arisen giving rise to substantial cause of action at Delhi. Therefore, it
was the case on behalf of the workman that the Labour Court at Delhi           G
has territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
      3.1 The Labour Court vide award dated 18.04.2006 held the
preliminary issue in favour of the management and held that the Labour
Court at Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case/complaint/
reference. The Labour Court held that merely because the Corporate
                                                                               H
64             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A    Office of the management was at Delhi the same will not vest the Labour
     Court, Delhi with territorial jurisdiction. The Labour Court held that as
     the cause of action has arisen at Ghaziabad, the Court at Ghaziabad
     alone had the jurisdiction to try the case.
            3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award/order passed
B    by the Labour Court holding that the Labour Court, Delhi has no territorial
     jurisdiction to try the case, the workman preferred the writ petition before
     the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judge
     dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 09.04.2015. The Letters
     Patent Appeal (LPA) against the order passed by the learned Single
     Judge has been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by
C    the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the workman has preferred
     the present appeal.
             4. Ms. V. Mohana, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
     of the appellant herein – workman has vehemently submitted that in the
     present case it cannot be said that there is a total lack of jurisdiction in
D    the Labour Court, Delhi. It is submitted that as the Head Office, where
     the demand notice was sent was at Delhi and the demand notice was
     served from Delhi where the workman was staying after the termination,
     it can be said that a part cause of action has arisen in Delhi. It is submitted
     that when a part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi, the Court at
E    Delhi would have territorial jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the decisions
     of this Court in the cases of Nandram Vs. Garware Polyster Limited;
     (2016) 6 SCC 290, Bikash Bhushan Ghosh and Ors. Vs. Novartis
     India Ltd. and Anr; (2007) 5 SCC 591 and Singareni Collieries
     Co. Ltd. Vs. Ande Lingaiah and Anr; (2000) 10 SCC 294.

F            4.1 It is further submitted by Ms. V. Mohana, learned Senior
     Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the present case,
     the Labour Court had decided the preliminary issue and held that the
     Labour Court, Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the case. It is
     submitted that Labour Court ought to have given its decision on all issues.
     Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of D.P.
G    Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and Ors.; (1983) 4 SCC
     293. It is submitted that as held by this honourable Court, tribunals should
     dispose of all the issues, whether preliminary or otherwise, at the same
     time.
            4.2 Making the above submissions and relying upon above decisions
H    of this Court, it is prayed to quash and set aside the order(s) passed by
  V G JAGDISHAN v. M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED                             65
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the Labour Court, learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the           A
High Court and direct the Labour Court, Delhi to decide and dispose of
the case at the earliest.
       5. As per the office report, service is not complete on sole
respondent No. 1 and as per the post tracking report, notice has not
been delivered to respondent No. 1 with postal remarks as “Addressee           B
left without instructions”. However, the present Special Leave Petition
(SLP) is of the year 2016 and for the reasons hereinbelow, we see no
reasons to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. We proceed
further with the SLP ex-parte so far as sole respondent No. 1 is
concerned.
                                                                               C
       6. The question which is posed for the consideration of this Court
is, whether, the Labour Court, Delhi would have territorial jurisdiction to
decide the case or the Labour Court, Ghaziabad would have territorial
jurisdiction to decide the case.
       6.1 From the findings recorded by the Labour Court, Delhi and           D
the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, it is
not much in dispute that the workman was employed as a driver at
Ghaziabad office. He was working at the Ghaziabad. His services were
retrenched at Ghaziabad. All throughout during the employment, the
workman stayed and worked at Ghaziabad. Only after the retrenchment/
termination the workman shifted to Delhi from where he served a demand         E
notice at Head Office of the Management situated at Delhi. Merely
because the workman after termination/retrenchment shifted to Delhi
and sent a demand notice from Delhi and the Head Office of the
Management was at Delhi, it cannot be said that a part cause of action
has arisen at Delhi. Considering the facts that the workman was employed       F
at Ghaziabad; was working at Ghaziabad and his services were terminated
at Ghaziabad, the facts being undisputed, only the Ghaziabad Court would
have territorial jurisdiction to decide the case. As such the issue involved
in the present case is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this
Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Kalyan
Banerjee; (2008) 3 SCC 456. In the case of Eastern Coalfields                  G
Ltd. (supra) the workman was employed in Mugma area in the district
of Dhanbad, Jharkhand. His services were terminated at Mugma.
However, the workman filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High
Court. On a preliminary objection taken the Calcutta High Court held
that since the workman was serving at Mugma area under the General             H
66             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A    Manager of the area which is the State of Jharkhand, the Calcutta High
     Court had no jurisdiction. Affirming the aforesaid decision, this Court
     held that the entire cause of action arose in Mugma area within the
     State of Jharkhand and only because the head office of the company
     was situated in the State of West Bengal, the same by itself will not
     confer any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court particularly when
B
     the head office had nothing to do with the order of punishment passed
     against the workman. In the present case also, the workman was
     employed at Ghaziabad; he was working at Ghaziabad and his services
     were also terminated at Ghaziabad by the office at Ghaziabad where he
     was employed.
C           6.2 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
     Court in the case of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. (supra) is concerned,
     apart from the fact that the same is not applicable to the facts of the
     case on hand, it is required to be noted that the order passed by this
     Court in the said case was a consent order and the order was passed in
D    exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the
     question of law was left open. Therefore, no reliance can have been
     placed on the said decision.
            6.3 Now, as far as the decision of this Court in the case of Bikash
     Bhushan Ghosh (supra) is concerned, on facts, the said decision also
E    is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. That was a case
     where it was specifically found that the part cause of action had arisen
     at both places. In the present case as observed, it cannot be said that
     any part cause of action has arisen at Delhi.
             6.4 Reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of
F    Nandram (supra) is also of no assistance to the appellant. Again, on
     facts, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
     That was also a case where it was found that part cause of action had
     arisen in both the places, namely, Pondicherry and Aurangabad.
     Therefore, it was found on facts that both, the Labour Courts at
     Pondicherry and Aurangabad had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter
G    and therefore, the Labour Court at Aurangabad was well within its
     jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
            6.5 In the case of D.P. Maheshwari (supra) is pressed into service
     by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in support
     of the submission that the Labour Court ought not to have given the
H
  V G JAGDISHAN v. M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED                               67
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

decision only on preliminary issue and ought to have disposed of all the         A
issues, whether preliminary or otherwise at the same time. On facts the
said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the
aforesaid decision no absolute proposition of law was laid down by this
Court that even the issue touching the jurisdiction of the court cannot be
decided by the court as a preliminary issue and the court has to dispose
                                                                                 B
of all the issues, whether preliminary or otherwise, at the same time.
When the issue touches the question of territorial jurisdiction, as far as
possible the same shall have to be decided first as preliminary issue.
Therefore, in the present case, the Labour Court did not commit any
error in deciding the issue with respect to the territorial jurisdiction as a
preliminary issue in the first instance.                                         C
       7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                                 D
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                        Appeals dismissed.




                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H