Industrial Disputes Act | Situs Of Workman’s Place Of Employment Vital To Confer Territorial Jurisdiction On Labour Court: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the situs of a workman’s place of employment is a determinative factor in conferring territorial jurisdiction on a labour court although not specified in the Industrial Disputes Act.

“Though the Industrial Disputes Act does not make any reference to the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, however, situs of the place of employment of a workman would be a determinative factor in conferring territorial jurisdiction upon a Labour Court for deciding a labour dispute raised by a workman,” a division bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna observed.

The bench was deciding a plea moved by a journalist, J Balaji, working with The Hindu newspaper challenging a single judge’s order dismissing his claim petition on the ground that courts in the national capital have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said claim.

The man joined the newspaper as a special correspondent and was posted at Vishakhapatnam. He was transferred in 2008 to Delhi. While working in Delhi, he was promoted to Senior Assistant Editor in 2013. He was later transferred to Chennai in February 2014. However, his services were terminated in July 2014 as he continued on leave beyond the approved period.

The Labour Court dismissed his claim petition holding that Delhi Courts had lost their territorial jurisdiction since the situs of his employment had shifted from Delhi to Chennai. The order was upheld by a single judge.

Dismissing the plea, the division bench held that the cause of action for challenging the termination order arose entirely in Chennai.

“Merely because respondents have a full-fledged office in Delhi or that appellant was posted in Delhi immediately before his transfer to Chennai, would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi Courts. The judgments as relied upon by appellant do not come to his aid, as the said matters involve cases where cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the place in question,” the court said.

Observing that Delhi Courts have no territorial jurisdiction in the matter, the court, however, granted Balaji the liberty to approach the competent Court of jurisdiction in Chennai which shall consider his case on merits after granting him benefit in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

“Even otherwise, transfer order could not have been challenged by the appellant in a petition under Section 2A of the ID Act. The appellant was employed not in Delhi, but in Chennai at the time of his termination. The termination order was issued in Chennai. Therefore, it cannot be said by any extent of imagination that the cause of action arose in Delhi,” the court said.

Title: J BALAJI v. THE HINDU NEW DELHI AND ANR

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 772

Click Here To Read Order