NANDRAM versus M/S. GARWARE POLYSTER LTD.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 672 · Decided: 16-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2016) 2 S.C.R. 672 
NAN DRAM 
v. 
MIS. GARWARE POLYSTER LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1409 of2016) 
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 
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/. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
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 
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. 
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 
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 
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. 
T. K. Prabhakaran, Deepak Prabhakaran, Gopal Jain for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I . Leave granted. 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
5. Though, the learned counsel on both sides had addressed in

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