THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25467 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Medical Representative with M/s Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited, the 2nd respondent herein. For some time, he worked at Visakhapatnam, and thereafter, he was posted at Mysore and Bangalore. He submitted a letter of resignation dated 06-03-1995, stating inter alia that he is entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.1,01,397/-. He mentioned that his resignation may be accepted, in case the 2nd respondent is prepared to pay that amount. Through letter dated 20-04-1995, the 2nd respondent accepted the resignation of the petitioner. Thereafter, correspondence ensued, and the petitioner pressed for payment of the amount. When there was no positive response from the respondents 2 and 3, he filed M.P.No.24/96 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 33 C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared and raised an objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Through its order dated 28-06-1999, the Labour Court dismissed the M.P., on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavali, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Labour. There is no representation for the respondents 2 and 3. It is a matter of record that respondents 2 and 3, the employers of the petitioner, are from Mumbai and Chennai, respectively. The only basis, the M.P was filed before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, was, that the petitioner sent his letter of resignation from that place, and that he started residing there, after submitting the resignation. Those facts hardly constitute the basis for presentation of the case before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. It is almost settled that the proceedings before judicial and quasi-judicial forum are to be instituted within whose territorial jurisdiction the respondents therein reside. The place of residence of a petitioner, or plaintiff, hardly becomes the relevant factor. It is only under the Motor Vehicles Act, and under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, that facility is created for initiation of proceedings by an individual, within whose territorial jurisdiction the person named therein resides. The Labour Court has examined the matter, in detail; referred to the decided cases, and took the view that it has no territorial jurisdiction. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the Labour Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies before appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.01-07-2010. KO