IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.1142 of 2010 in L.P.A. No.864 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.3.2010 Hansa Dutt Pandey. -----Appellant Vs. The Presiding Officer & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, upholding the award of the Labour Court to the effect that industrial dispute arising out of termination of services of the appellant by the Haryana Government could not be referred for adjudication by the Chandigarh Administration. 2. The appellant was employed as a daily wager in the PWD Department of Haryana Government. On termination of his services, he raised an industrial dispute and approached the Chandigarh Administration for its adjudication. Accordingly, the Chandigarh Administration referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Chandigarh. The Haryana Government- management raised an objection to the maintainability of reference before the Labour Court, Chandigarh at the instance of Chandigarh Administration, which plea was upheld by the Labour Court and affirmed by learned Single Judge. LPA No.864 of 2009 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dispute arose at Chandigarh as intimation of termination was received at Chandigarh. He referred to certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the question of place where cause of action arose i.e. Workmen of Shri Ranga Vilas Motors (P) Ltd. v. Sri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. and others. AIR 1967 SC 1040, Bikash Bhushan Ghosh and others v. Novartis India Ltd. & another (2007) 5 SCC 591. 5. We do not find any merit in the contention. The question in this case is not only of place of working but also whether the appropriate Government is the State of Haryana or the Chandigarh Administration. We do not see any reason why Haryana Govt. could not be treated as appropriate Govt. as held by the Labour Court and learned Single Judge. 6. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 29, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 2