V G Jagdishan vs M/s. Indofos Industries Limited

V G Jagdishan vs M/s. Indofos Industries Limited 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.        OF 2022

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 12511 OF 2016)

V G Jagdishan           ..Appellant (S)

Versus

M/s. Indofos Industries Limited    ..Respondent (S)

J U D G M E N T 

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

1

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 shifted to Delhi. He sent a demand notice

challenging his 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 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

2

jurisdiction   since   the   workman   was   appointed   at

Ghaziabad; he was working in the factory of management –

respondent 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 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

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

  

3.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award/order

passed   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 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 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

4

when a part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi, the

Court at 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.     

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. 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.

5

4.2 Making the above submissions and relying upon above

decisions of this Court, it is prayed to quash and set aside

the order(s) passed by the Labour Court, learned Single

Judge and the Division Bench of the 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 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 ex­parte so far as

sole respondent No. 1 is concerned.      

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

6

Court,   Ghaziabad   would   have   territorial   jurisdiction   to

decide the case.  

6.1 From the findings recorded by the Labour Court, Delhi and

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 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

7

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   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 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 the head office had nothing to do with the order of

punishment passed against the workman. In the present

8

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. 

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

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 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

9

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  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   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   decision   only   on

preliminary issue and ought to have disposed of all the

issues, whether preliminary or otherwise at the same time.

10

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 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.          

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. 

…………………………………J.

                (M. R. SHAH)

11

…………………………………J.

 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

New Delhi, 

April 19, 2022.

12