V G JAGDISHAN versus M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 61 · Decided: 19-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
61
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 61
61
V G JAGDISHAN
v.
M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 2976 of 2022)
APRIL 19, 2022
[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
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-
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;
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
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
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
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]
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 :
[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
[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
(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
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
63
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
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.
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 shifte

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