Decided on September 21,1979

VINOD RAO Appellant


S.B.MAJMUDAR, S.H.SHETH - (1.) The petitioner is a journalist. He was working at Ahmedabad as the Staff Correspondent of Blitz Publications (private) Ltd. which is located at Bombay. The petitioner was operating on behalf of his employer throughout the State of Gujarat and more particularly in the City of Ahmedabad. His services were terminated by his employer by order made at Bombay on 10th December 1976. An industrial dispute was therefore raised by the petitioner. It was referred for adjudication under sec. 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Ahmedabad to the Labour Court at Ahmedabad. It was contended on behalf of the employer before the Labour Court that Gujarat Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it reference. The Labour Court upheld the contention raised on behalf of the employer and held that the reference was not legally maintainable because Gujarat Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain it. According to the Labour Court the dispute bad arisen within the territory of the State of Maharashtra. The reference was therefore dismissed.
(2.) It is that order which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition. The only contention which has been raised is whether Gujarat Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the reference. The answer to the question deputy upon which is the appropriate Government in the instant case. The expression appropriate Government has been defined by sec. 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. It inter alia states as under: In relation to any officer Industrial dispute the State Government. The question is which is the State Government in the instant case ? Is it the State Government of Maharashtra or is it the State Government of Gujarat which is the appropriate Government ? The Act is silent on the tests which can be applied for determining which is the appropriate Government.
(3.) There is no doubt about the fact that Blitz Publications (Private) Ltd. employer is located in the City of Bombay outside the State of Gujarat. It also cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner was (imposed by his employer at Bombay and that the petitioners activities were controlled and supervised by his employer from Bombay. This is one set of facts. The second set of facts are as follows. The petitioner had been operating in the State of Gujarat on behalf of his employer. His salary was paid to him by his employer at Ahmedabad. The order terminating his services though made at Bombay was served upon him at Ahmedabad and was implemented there. The impugned order of termination of services became fully operative when the petitioners services came to an end in the State of Gujarat. Upon these facts we have to determine which Court has jurisdiction to entertain the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner: whether Gujarat Labour Court or Maharashtra Labour Court.;

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