RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of medicine having its factory at A-105/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 was employed with the petitioners as Medical Representative and was deputed to look after the area of Bulandshahar. The main work of respondent No.2 was to promote the sale in Bulandshahar area. However, his work had never been satisfactory and there had been several complaints against him. On December 28, 1996 respondent No. 2 filed an application under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before the authority under the Minimum Wages Act/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bulandshahar which was registered as M. W. A. Case No. 7/1997. Along with the aforesaid application, the respondent No. 2 also moved an application for condoning the delay in filing the application. In the application respondent No. 2 has stated that his salary was Rs. 1000/- per month whereas his salary ought to have, been Rs. 1500/- per month and as such, the petitioner has made illegal deduction of Rs. 500/- per month. In the application respondent No. 2 has also mentioned about the C.B. Case No. 2 of 1996, which was then pending.
(2.) The petitioner filed its objection to the delay condonation application and also filed their preliminary objection to the application under the Minimum Wages Act. On May 16, 1997 respondent No. 1 heard the application on delay: condonation and passed the following order: "Vernacular matter omitted.
(3.) Thereafter the arguments on preliminary objections were heard on July 30 1997 and the order was reserved which was delivered subsequently, but respondent No. 1 has put the date of July 30, 1997. By order dated July 30, 1997 respondent No. 1 has condoned the delay as well as over ruled the preliminary objection and has fixed the next date in the case. It is submitted that petitioner's factory and its office are situated within territorial jurisdiction of the State of Delhi. The appointment was made at Delhi and salary was also paid from Delhi and as such the jurisdiction lies within the State of Delhi only. No cause of action arose in State of U.P. The jurisdiction, if any, lies within the State of Delhi.;