S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) IN this case on 16.10.2008 following order was passed (on the order sheet): "Question of jurisdiction was raised before the Labour Court and on behalf of employer-petitioner it was prayed that it might be decided as a preliminary issue. Labour Court held that question of jurisdiction would be decided alongwith other issues while deciding the reference finally. The dispute is as to whether Labour Court at Kanpur or Labour Court at Mumbai will have jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute between the parties. The Court proposes to decide the question of jurisdiction finally in this writ petition i.e. whether Labour Court at Kanpur has got jurisdiction or Labour Court at Mumbai. As it is a pure question of law and there is no dispute regarding facts which are necessary for deciding this question hence no counter affidavit is necessary. Learned counsel for both the parties agree for final decision on the question of jurisdiction. Accordingly, put up on 18.10.2008.17.10.2008 is reported to be the date fixed before the Labour Court at Kanpur. If an adjournment application is filed then the case may be adjourned for about two weeks."
(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 is a company registered under the Company's Act having its registered office at Mumbai. PETITIONER No. 2 is Branch Manager of the Company of its branch at Kanpur. According to para- 4 of the writ petition petitioner company is having one of its sales offices at Kanpur. According to para-5 of the writ petition respondent No. 3-Abhisekh Narain Saxena was appointed as sales assistant with effect from 10.5.2004 and posted at Kanpur branch. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is the appointment letter issued by Sr. Manager (Administration). Place of issuance of the letter is not mentioned however, it is addressed to respondent No. 3 on his address of Kanpur. According to para-6 of the writ petition, after six months of probation period, respondent No. 3 was confirmed. It has also been stated in the said para that services were liable to be transferred to any place where company was doing business (clause V of the appointment letter). According to para-7 of the writ petition, on 31.8.2005 respondent No. 3 was transferred to head office of the company at Mumbai and he was required to join the duties there by 19.9.2005. Respondent No. 3 reported for duty at Mumbai office on 19.9.2005. According to para-9 of the writ petition, the respondent No. 3 on the very next day i.e. 20.9.2005 left Mumbai for Kanpur to attend to his allegedly ailing mother without proper sanction of leave. Letter written by respondent No. 3 on 20.9.2005 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In para-10 of the writ petition it is stated that respondent No. 3 continued to write the letters regarding prolonged illness of his mother and remained absent without due leave however, petitioner company taking a sympathetic view of his mother's illness did not take any adverse action against respondent No. 3. Thereafter in para-11 of the writ petition it has been stated that on 13.10.2005 respondent No. 3 again requested for extension of his leave and further requested that petitioner might allow him to resume duty at Kanpur. The said letter was received by the petitioner at its Mumbai office on 21.10.2005 copy of the said letter is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In the said letter it was stated that respondent No. 3 should join duty at Mumbai latest by 7.11.2005 failing which company would be forced to take disciplinary action against him. The said letter was addressed to respondent No. 3 at his Kanpur address. Similar letter was written by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 on 11.11.2005, true copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition asking him to join immediately at Mumbai. Respondent No. 3 through his letter dated 17.11.2005 again asked for leave due to his mother's illness. Another letter was sent by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 on 29.11.2005 asking the respondent No. 3 to join latest by 5.12.2005 at Mumbai. Thereafter on 13.12.2005 petitioner terminated the services of respondent No. 2, copy of the said order is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The letter was addressed to respondent No. 3 at his Kanpur address. Termination is termed as "discharge simplicitor". One month notice "pay alongwith other dues was also sent alongwith the said letter through demand draft. Thereafter respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute. On failure of the conciliation proceedings Additional Labour Commissioner, U.P. Kanpur made the reference under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act equivalent to Section 10 of the I.D. Act. The matter was registered before Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1st U.P, Kanpur as adjudication case No. 114 of 2006. The matter which was referred was as to whether the action of the petitioner employer in terminating the services of its workman-respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 3.12.2005 was valid and just or not. Before the Labour Court petitioner-employer raised the question of jurisdiction contending that as termination order had been passed at Mumbai and petitioner was at the relevant time posted at Mumbai hence State of Mumbai and not of U.P. had jurisdiction to make the reference and labour Court at Mumbai only could decide the dispute. It was further prayed that the question of jurisdiction might be decided as preliminary issue. The labour Court through order dated 14.8.2008 held that the question of jurisdiction would be decided alongwith other issues at the time of final disposal of the adjudication case and not as preliminary issue. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.
(3.) THE Court adopted the course of deciding the question of jurisdiction finally (as indicated in the order dated 16.10.2008 supra) in order to shorten the litigation and avoid the hardship to the parties. Such course is permissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction in view of Supreme Court authority reported in Shah v. Manoj Kumar, 2004 ACJ 1213. Learned counsel for both the parties have cited several authorities particularly the following: (1) AIR 1967 SC 1040, Workmen of Shri. Ranga Vitas Motors (P) Ltd. v. Sri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. holding that dispute ordinarily arises at the place where the workman is working and not at the headquarters of the Industry and that there should be some nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State. (2)AIR 1966 SC 1313, State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika (Constitution Bench) wherein it has been held that dismissal of government officer becomes effective by publication or communication to officer concerned followed in AIR 2006 SC 2879, Ashok Kumar v. U.O.I. (3) Bikash Bhushan Ghosh and others v. M/s Novartis India Limited and another, JT 2007 (6) SC 432. Facts of the said case were that employer company in West Bengal had transferred some of its employees ;o its work place to other States. The employees did not join on the transferred post hence their services Were terminated. The Supreme Court has held that State of West Bengal was competent to make reference to the Tribunal.;