BRAHAM PARKASH Vs. GOVTOF NCT OF DELHI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI
Click here to view full 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.