1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1388 OF 2008 GlaxoSmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ..Petitioner V/s. Mr.K.Durga Prasad ..Respondent. Mr.P.K.Rele a/w Rajesh P. Rele & Vinod Tayade i/b. Piyush Shah for petitioner. Mr.R.D.Bhat for Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2008. : NOVEMBER 25, 2008. : NOVEMBER 25, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr.Bhat waives service for respondent. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith by consent. 3. The question that needs to be addressed in the present Petition which goes to the root of the matter is whether on admitted facts the Labour Court at Mumbai had jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint filed by the Respondent employee. It is not in dispute that the Respondent employee is proceeded on charges of absenteeism, not producing 2 statement and several other charges. The Charge sheet was issued to him. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time, the Respondent employee was employed in the establishment of the Petitioner at head quarter as Anantapur in Andhra Pradesh State. Indeed, the Petitioner issued the charge-sheet from Bombay and head office of the Petitioner Company at Bombay. The fact remains that the Respondent was employed at Anantapur in A.P. state, which is outside the jurisdiction of Labour Court, Mumbai. Labour Court by the impugned Judgment has answered the issue of jurisdiction against the Petitioner on the specious reasoning that the chargesheet issued to the Respondent was from Bombay as Head office of the Petitioner company is at Bombay. This reasoning cannot be countenanced. What is relevant to be noticed is the fact as to the place of actual service or employment of the employee concerned and not the location of Head office of the Company. In the present case, as aforesaid, it is common ground that the Respondent was employed as Medical Representative at Anantapur, head quarter in Andhra Pradesh. If it is so, assuming that the Respondent is workman for the purpose of instituting proceedings before the Labour Court, Labour Court at Mumbai would have no jurisdiction in the matter. This position is no more res-intigra. In the case of Abhay Raj Jain employed 3 with the Petitioner company similar question came for consideration. Division Bench of our High Court has answered the issue in favour of the Petitioner company in Appeal No.716 of 2002 decided on 12th August, 2008. Indeed, against the said decision, Federation of Medical Sales Representative Association of India carried the matter in appeal before the Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal(C) No.26000 of 2008. The said Special Leave to Appeal has been finally disposed of on 22nd November, 2008, as the concerned, employed had resigned from service. 4. I am conscious of the fact that the Apex Court has kept the question open to be considered in appropriate case. However, so far as this Court is concerned, decision of the Division Bench would bind me. In the circumstances, following decision of the Division Bench of our High Court referred to above, this Petition ought to succeed. 5. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Judgment and Award impugned in this Petition dated 2nd May, 2008 passed in Revision Application (ULP) No.59 of 2008 is set aside. As a necessary corollary to the finding recorded in the earlier part of the Judgment, the Complaint (ULP) No.85 of 2006 will stand 4 dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Indeed, this will not preclude the Respondent to pursue his remedy before Court of Competent jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, Petition is allowed on the above terms, with no order as to costs. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)