1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.509 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1317 OF 2005 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3996 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO.509 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1317 OF 2005 Novartis India Ltd. .... Appellant V/s. Brajesh Kumar Sharma ..... Respondent Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr.Advocate a/w Mr.R.N.Shah, Mr.R.J.Cama i/by M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the appellant. Ms.Naina Buch a/w Mr.Shailesh More, for the respondent. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, & R.V.MORE, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2009 P.C. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10-06-2008, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the present respondent, by setting aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in complaint (I.T.) No.2 of 1996. The respondent who was the original complainant before the Industrial Tribunal, had invoked the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 2 The respondent was transferred by the appellant company from Agra (U.P.) to Bettiah (Bihar). The Tribunal dismissed the said complaint against which the present respondent filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for deciding it de novo. The aforesaid order is impugned at the instance of the appellant company. 2. The principal argument on behalf of the appellant is in connection with the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, to decide the said Reference in question. At the time of hearing of this appeal, Ms.Buch, learned counsel appearing for the trade-Union, fairly submitted that with a view to see that the respondent can raise appropriate industrial dispute before the appropriate Court, she has no objection if the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. She requested that the appellant should agree for joint reference under Section 10(2) of the Act, so that the dispute can be adjudicated expeditiously as the respondent has spent considerable time in pursuing the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal at Bombay. 3. Mr.Cama, appearing for the appellant-Company, submitted that he has no objection for making a joint reference under Section 10(2) of the Act, and is willing to be the signatory to the joint reference, if 3 appropriate reference is made before the State of U.P., where the cause of action arises. 4. Considering the consensus prevailing between the parties in this appeal, it is directed that the appellant and respondent shall apply before the appropriate Government under Section 10(2) of the Act, for making a joint reference and it is for the concerned Government to refer the dispute to the appropriate Court as per the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. If there is any other provisions which may be pari materia to the Industrial Dispute Act, it is for the appropriate Government to consider the said aspect. It is left to the appropriate Government to refer the dispute to the appropriate Court. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the issue, except recording statement of both the sides to the effect that they will prefer a joint reference. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that for making joint reference, her client will prefer an application in the prescribed format, which will be given to the appellant for their signature. So far as this aspect is concerned, it is for the parties to workout the same. Suffice it to say that so far as the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is concerned, in our view, said Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute and the parties to go to the appropriate forum for getting the dispute adjudicated and the aforesaid order is passed, which is 4 a consent order. We hope that considering the fact that the respondent herein has consumed some time in prosecuting the dispute before a wrong forum, it is for the concern authority to put an end to the dispute expeditiously. 6. It is clarified that the issue regarding applicability of Section 33(a) of the Act, stands concluded and the respondent now will be entitled to raise substantive industrial dispute under the relevant Act. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that with the help of the appellant, appropriate application for joint reference shall be prepared and submitted before the appropriate Government within a period of three months from today. 7. In view of what is stated above, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and similarly, the order of the Industrial Tribunal impugned before the learned single Judge is also set aside. The resultant effect is that the complaint (I.T.) No.2 of 1996 stands withdrawn on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid lines. 8. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the notice of motion does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. ( R.V.MORE, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)