BRAHAM PARKASH Vs. GOVTOF NCT OF DELHI
LAWS(DLH)-2007-8-110
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on August 27,2007

BRAHAM PARKASH Appellant
VERSUS
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

HIMA KOHLI, J. - (1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner workman has challenged an award dated 7th April, 2007 passed by the Labour Court in ID No.203/06 wherein the reference as to whether the services of the petitioner workman were terminated illegally or unjustifiably by the respondent management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief and consequential benefits is he entitled to, has been answered against the petitioner workman by holding that the courts in Delhi have no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes between the parties as the petitioner workman was lastly posted with the respondent management at Neemrana, Alwar, Rajasthan.
(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner workman filed a statement of claim stating inter alia that he was appointed as a Typist by the respondent management on 10th May, 1983 in the head office of the respondent management. Due to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of India, one of the factories of the respondent management being a highly polluting industry was directed to be closed down and the respondent management started its unit in Neemrana, Alwar, Rajasthan on 1st July, 1999. The petitioner workman was directed to report for duty at the aforesaid unit vide order dated 25th June, 1999. It is averred that a false and frivolous complaint was lodged against the petitioner workman for stealing 15 MT iron scrap pursuant to which an FIR was registered against him at Alwar and when the petitioner workman was released on bail by the Trial Court and reached the office to resume his duty on 24th July, 2001, the respondent management refused to allow him to join duty. It is further averred that the services of the petitioner workman were terminated by the respondent management on 17th July, 2001 and the petitioner workman was entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service.
(3.) The aforesaid claim was opposed by the respondent management. One of the preliminary objections taken in the written statement was that the Labour Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute as the petitioner workman was employed at Neemrana, Alwar, Rajasthan. The respondent management also opposed the claim petition of the petitioner workman on merits. Issues were framed on 3rd September, 2003. One of the issues framed was as to whether the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the reference. The said issue was taken at the first instance and was decided against the petitioner workman by holding that he was transferred from Delhi to Neemrana, Alwar, Rajasthan by the respondent management and at the time of his alleged termination of services, he was posted at Neemrana and getting his wages from the management situated at Rajasthan. Thus it was held that the Labour Courts situated in Delhi will have no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the parties.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.