BIKASH BHUSHAN GHOSE AND ORS. versus M/S. NOVARATIS INDIA LIMITED AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 985 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
A 
BIKASH BHUSHAN GHOSE AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MIS. NOV ARA TIS INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, 2007 
[S.8. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-s. 10(1) (c) r/w s. 2A-Appropriate 
Government to make Reference of dispute-Termination of employees for not 
obeying transfer order-Workmen holding charge at Calcutta-Reference of C 
dispute by State of West Bengal-Jurisdiction of-Held: Termination order 
against employees was served upon them at Calcutta-Employees did not 
join their duties at the transferred places-If transfer orders were set aside, 
employees would be deemed to be continued to be posted in Calcutta-Thus, 
legality of transfer orders having a direct nexus with the termination orders-
Also part of cause of arose in Calcutta-Thus, State of West Bengal appropriate D 
Government to make reference. 
Appellants-Workmen challenged their transfer orders since it was 
issued with the ill-motive to victimize them. Appellant moved before the Labour 
Commissioner, West Bengal for cancellation of termination order. During 
pendency, respondent-employer terminatied the services of the appellants. E 
Appellants raised an industrial dispute. State of West Bengal referred the 
dispute for adjudication to Third Industrial Tribuna~ West Bengal Respondent 
raised an objection that the State of West Bengal had no jurisdiction to make 
reference. Tribunal held that the reference was maintainable and passed an 
award. Respondent filed writ petition which was dismissed. However, the F 
Division Bench of High Court without going into the merit of the matter held 
that the State of West Bengal not being the appropriate Government with 
regard to the dispute raised, had no jurisdiction to make the reference and 
set aside the award of the tribunal as also the order of Single Judge. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is not dispute the orders the of termination were served 
upon the appellants at Calcutta. The order of termination as against them 
were passed for not obeying the orders of transfer. Therefore , the transfer 
G 
985 
II 
986 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 5 S.C.R. 
A of the appellants had some nexus with the order of their termination form 
services. It cannot be said that the State of West Bengal was not the 
appropriate Government. [Para ll I [989-G I 
Workmen of Shri Rangavillas Motors (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Shri Rangavilas 
Motors (P) Ltd. and Ors., [1967] 2 SCR 528; Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Its 
B Workmen, [1962] Supp 3 SCR 589 and Paritosh Kumar Pal v. State of Bihar 
and Ors., (1984) LAB. I.C. 1254, referred to. 
c 
1.2. Referring to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was 
held that the employment of the workman would be a relevant factor for 
determining the jurisdiction of the concerned. [Para 151 [991-B] 
Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, 
(2005) -II-LLJ 333, referred to. 
1.3. The Division Bench of High Court did not pose unto itself a correct 
question of law. It is not in dispute that the appellants did not join their duties 
D at the transferred places. According to them , as the orders of transfer were 
illegal, their services were terminated for not complying therewith. The 
assertion of the respondent that the appellant were relieved from job was 
unilateral. If the orders of transfer were to be set aside, they would be deemed 
to be continuing to be posted in Calcutta. Thus, the legality of the orders of 
E transfer had a direct nexus with the orders of termination. 
(Para 17) [992-A, B, C] 
Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr., (2006] 6 SCC 2007, 
referred to. 
F 
1.4. A part of cause of action arose in respect whereof, the State of West 
Bengal was the appropriate Government. It may be that in a given case, two 
States may have the requisite jurisdiction in terms of clause (c) of sub-section 
(l) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Assuming that other State 
Governments had also jurisdiction, it would not mean that although a part of 
cause of action arose within the territory of the State of West Bengal, it would 
G have no jurisdiction to make the reference. [Para 18) [913-C, D] 
1.5. If the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure are given 
effect to, even if the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal had no 
jurisdiction, in view of provision contained in S. 21 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, unless respondent s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.