1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 36 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 341 OF 2006 Sahara India TV Network.. .. Petitioners. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Rajiv Patil with Sachin Punde i/by Milind Godbole for petitioners. Mr. Mihir Desai for respondent no.3. CORAM : S.U. KAMDAR, J. DATE : 13th March, 2006. P.C.: . By consent of the parties, chamber summons is granted. Amendment to be carried out within one week. Chamber summons disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 341 OF 2006 Sahara India TV Network.. .. Petitioners. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Rajiv Patil with Sachin Punde i/by Milind Godbole for petitioners. Mr. Mihir Desai for respondent no.3. CORAM : S.U. KAMDAR, J. DATE : 13th March, 2006. P.C.: . The present writ petition challenges the order dated 21.4.2005 passed by the Dy. Labour Commissioner (Conciliation) Mumbai referring the dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication namely that the respondent no. 3 should be reinstated with full back wages with continuity of service from 24.4.2004. 3 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the State Government at Bombay had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 21.4.2005. In support of the aforesaid contention it has been contended that in fact the petitioner was an employee at Sahara India T.V. Network and by an order dated 17.3.2004 passed by the company the services of the respondent no. 3 were transferred to Bureau Office, Sahara Samay (U.P.), Lucknow with immediate effect. It is his case that by letter dated 23.3.2004 the petitioner agreed to join Lucknow Bureau Office and accepted the said transfer. However, by a further letter dated 27.3.2004 she forwarded a medical certificate and did not resume the work at transferred place. It is the case of the petitioner that because of certain misconduct of assaulting the higher officer the services of the petitioner are terminated. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the transfer and acceptance thereof by the respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 3 is deemed to have joined the Luckhnow Office and, therefore, the respondent no. 3 was an employee at Lucknow and thus the only the State of U.P. was an appropriate Govt. under Section 2 (a) (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is his contention that, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of 4 Labour (Conciliation) at Mumbai is not an appropriate authority and the State Government of Maharashtra is not the appropriate government under the provisions of the said Act. 4. In my opinion, the contention is without any merit. It is not disputed that though the transfer order was effected on the respondent no. 3, at no point of time the respondent no. 3 ever resumed the job and joined the duty at Lukhnow. Thus, the respondent no. 3 continued to be at Bombay and consequently the termination order is passed at Bombay. It is an admitted position that she did not join service at Lucknow but continued in Bombay. Ultimately, by an order dated 24.4.2004 the services of the respondent no. 3 were terminated on the ground of misconduct, namely, slapping and abusing one of the employee of the petitioner company and treating that as a serious misconduct. The said termination order has been issued to the respondent no. 3 at Bombay. The aforesaid termination order was passed pursuant to the enquiry conducted against respondent no. 3 at Mumbai and giving a finding that the respondent no. 3 has committed the said misconduct. Thus, the cause of action for referring a dispute as per the demand of the respondent no. 3 has arose in Bombay, and, therefore, the State Government of Maharashtra is an appropriate government under the provisions of Section 2 (a) 5 (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the order of reference passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay dated 21.4.2005 is perfectly legal and valid. In that light of the matter the petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.