1 WP4968/08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4968 OF 2009 Nandram s/o Abaji Mandge, Aged 55 years, Occupation Nil, Resident of Bakwal Nagar, Opp. Waluj, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad Petitioner V E R S U S M/s Garware Polysters Ltd, Through its Manager, Naygaon, Post Waluj, Aurangabad Respondent Mr. S.R. Palnitkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran, Advocate for respondent sole CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Reserved On : 13th April, 2011 Pronounced On : 7th June, 2011 JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges judgment and order dated 4th July, 2009 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad in revision (ULP) No. 13 of 2009. The learned member held that the petitioner’s complaint filed in the Labour Court was not maintainable there for want of territorial jurisdiction. 2. The facts are few and admitted. The petitioner was appointed in 1983 as Boiler Attendant in the respondent’s factory at Waluj, Aurangabad. In the year 2000, the respondent transferred the petitioner to their factory at Silvasa and thereafter in 2004, he was transferred to Pondecheri. On 12/04/2005 the establishment at Pondecheri was closed down and on account of such event, the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner was paid certain amount as compensation. Thereafter, the petitioner came back to Aurangabad and filed ULP complaint No. 56/2005, before the learned Judge of Labour Court. The question was 2 WP4968/08 whether such complaint was maintainable before the said Court. It was all along the case of the respondent that since the cause of action arose at Pondechieri a place beyond territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the complaint was not maintainable. There is no dispute about the fact that the cause of action arose at Pondecheri. Despite of this, the petitioner wanted to file the complaint at Aurangabad mainly because the Head Office of the respondent is at Aurangabad. Besides the establishment at Pondecheri has been closed permanently since April, 2005. 3. The learned Judge of the Labour Court refused to dismiss the complaint on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction because according to the learned Judge, the question of jurisdiction was mixed question of law and facts. However, the learned member of Industrial Court allowed the application and held that the complaint was not maintainable at Aurangabad. 4. The learned member placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Abhay Raj Jain & anr. reported in 2009 (2) LLJ 337. 5. I must first of all make it clear that the question of jurisdiction in this case could not have been a mixed question of law and facts because the jurisdiction is required to be decided on the basis of averment in the complaint alone. The complaint in this case clearly discloses that the cause of action had arisen at Pondecheri when the petitioner was terminated giving him certain amount as compensation. Due to this event, no doubt, the petitioner would come back to his original place of resident i.e. Aurangabad. But does it mean that he would be able to file his complaint at Aurangabad? 6. Let me now examine the relevant provisions of law. .The 3 WP4968/08 provisions of section 28(1) of the recognition of “The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971”. Section 28 (1) reads as under. “28. Procedure for dealing with complaints relating to unfair labour practices- (1)Where any person has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labour practice, then any union or any employee or any employer or any Officer may, within ninety days of the occurrence of such unfair labour practice, file a complaint before the Court competent to deal with such complaint either under section 5, or as the case may be, under section 7 of this Act.” In view of this provision, the complainant like the petitioner here is required to file his complaint before the Court competent to deal with such complaint. 7. Section 6 of the Act provides as to how the State Government should constitute Labour Court in the State of Maharashtra. Section 6 reads as under: 6. Labour Court : The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts, having jurisdiction in such local areas, a may be specified in such notification, and shall appoint persons having the prescribed qualifications to preside over such Courts: Provided that, no person shall be so appointed, unless he possesses qualifications (other than the qualification of age), prescribed under Article 234 of the Constitution for being eligible to enter the judicial service of the State of Maharashtra; and is not more than sixty years of age. In this provision, there is clear mention of territorial jurisdiction of a Labour Court established under the provisions of Section 6. The Court which the petitioner approached in this case, was a Labour Court at Aurangabad established under the provisions of Section 6. Admittedly, this Court has a territorial jurisdiction. The cause of action for this complaint did not take place within the territorial jurisdiction. 8. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner asserted that 4 WP4968/08 despite of these provisions, the provisions of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure would determine as to whether the Labour Court, Aurangabad had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He said that since the respondent against whom the complaint was made, admittedly has its head office at Aurangabad, it must be assumed that it carries on business at Aurangabad and so a complaint of this nature would be maintainable before the Labour Court in whose local limits the respondent has their head office. 9. It is thus the case of the petitioner complainant that in view of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he has a choice of two places for suing his employer. He says that he could have sued his employer at Pondecheri because the cause of action arose there, or he could sue his employer at Aurangabad because they have registered office here. 10. Section 6 of the Act provides as to how the State Government would establish a Labour Court for a particular area in the State and section 28(1) provides as to how the complainant would file his complaint in respect of alleged unfair labour practice. The Act nowhere else provides a rule as to the place of suing. Section 28(1) indicates that a complainant would file his complaint in a Court which is competent to entertain such complaint. The question therefore,,is whether the Labour Court at Aurangabad had competent to entertain the complaint. 11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra) considered number of Judgments on this point and held “it is thus clear that it is the situs of the employment which would be the relevant factor to decide the place of cause of action for initiating any legal proceedings...” The Division Bench also referred to another Judgment of Division Bench in 5 WP4968/08 case of Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd., v. Vin (D.M.) and others (1956 I LLJ 557) and held that “...applying the well-known test of jurisdicition a Court or Tribunal will have to entertain the matter when the parties reside within its jurisdiction or if the subject-matter of the dispute substantially arises within its jurisdiction and, therefore, the correct approach to ascertain the jurisdiction is to ask oneself as to where does the dispute substantially arose....”. In view of this, the fact that the respondent – company’s registered office is at Aurangabad will not give jurisdiction to the Labour Court at Aurangabad to entertain the complaint. Writ Petition should therefore fail. Writ Petition Stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) srm/wp/4968/08/7/6/11/ok