Allowing an appeal in Nandram v Garware Polyester Ltd, the Supreme Court of India has held that labour courts at the place where a person was last employed and at a place where a company’s management is located both have jurisdiction to hear complaints filed by employees aggrieved by their termination.
Garware employed Nandram in 1983 as a boiler attendant in Aurangabad. He was transferred to Silvasa in Gujarat in 2000, and subsequently to Pondicherry in 2001, before being terminated in 2005.
[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=”show” ihc_mb_who=”3″ ihc_mb_template=”2″ ]
Aggrieved by the termination, Nandram filed a complaint with the labour court in Aurangabad, which held in his favour despite objections by Garware that the court lacked jurisdiction. Garware applied for a revision to the industrial court at Aurangabad, which set aside the labour court’s order, holding that the labour court in Aurangabad did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the termination had taken place in Pondicherry. An appeal by Nandram to Bombay High Court was dismissed on the grounds that the labour court in Aurangabad did not have territorial jurisdiction.
Setting aside the rulings of Bombay High Court and the industrial court at Aurangabad, the Supreme Court held that it could not be said that there was no cause of action in Aurangabad as the decision to terminate the appellant had been taken in Aurangabad, and thus part of the cause of action had arisen in Aurangabad.
The Supreme Court thus restored the order of the labour court in Aurangabad and directed it to hear the complaint on its merits and pass final orders within six months.
[/ihc-hide-content]
The dispute digest is compiled by Bhasin & Co, Advocates, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at lbhasin@bhasinco.in or lbhasin@gmail.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.
