Industrial dispute jurisdiction lies where employment and termination occurred, not merely where the employer’s head office is situated.

The petitioner-workman claimed that he was appointed by the respondent on 14 February 1994 and that his services were illegally terminated on 30 June 1998 without notice.

He served a demand notice from Delhi and sought reinstatement with full back wages before the Labour Court pursuant to a reference made by the Secretary (Labour), Government of NCT of Delhi.

The respondent objected to territorial jurisdiction, contending that the petitioner had throughout worked at its Gurgaon establishment, that the termination occurred at Gurgaon, and that the appropriate Government was the Government of Haryana.

The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue on territorial jurisdiction and held that the situs of employment and termination was Gurgaon; it consequently declined to adjudicate the dispute on merits and left the petitioner at liberty to approach the competent forum.

The petitioner challenged that award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the respondent’s registered and administrative offices were situated in Delhi and that his employment was controlled from Delhi.

Whether the Labour Court at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the industrial dispute merely because the respondent maintained its registered or administrative office in Delhi.

Whether the Government of NCT of Delhi was the appropriate Government competent to make the reference when the petitioner was employed and terminated at the respondent’s Gurgaon establishment.

Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the situs of employment and cause of action was Gurgaon warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the principle that territorial jurisdiction in an industrial dispute depends upon the existence of a real and substantial territorial nexus between the dispute and the forum, and not merely upon the location of the employer’s registered or head office.

In termination disputes, jurisdiction ordinarily lies where the workman was last employed and where the termination became effective.

Relying on V.G. Jagdishan v. Indofos Industries Ltd., (2022) 6 SCC 167, the Court held that employment, work, and termination at one location ordinarily confer jurisdiction upon that location, while a subsequent shift by the workman or service of a demand notice from another place does not create a part of the cause of action there.

Under Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee, (2008) 3 SCC 456, the mere presence of the employer’s head office in another State does not confer jurisdiction where that office had no role in the impugned employment action.

The Court also relied on J. Balaji v. The Hindu New Delhi, LPA 640/2022, to hold that an earlier posting or the employer’s Delhi office would not confer jurisdiction where the employee had accepted employment at, and was terminated from, the Chennai establishment.

Judicial interference under Articles 226 and 227 is unwarranted absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or a manifest legal infirmity.

The undisputed or supported facts established that the petitioner worked at the respondent’s Gurgaon factory, that his employment records, salary, attendance, welfare matters, and day-to-day supervision were maintained and administered there, and that the termination occurred at Gurgaon.

The petitioner failed to show that the Delhi office exercised control over his employment or that any substantial aspect of the termination dispute arose there.

Applying V.G. Jagdishan and Eastern Coalfields, the Court held that the existence of the respondent’s registered or administrative office in Delhi, and the petitioner’s having issued a demand notice from Delhi, did not establish the requisite territorial nexus with Delhi.

The alleged prior connection with Delhi was also insufficient, particularly since the petitioner joined in 1994 after the respondent’s factory had shifted to Gurgaon and there was no clear evidence establishing a transfer from Delhi or any continuing legal nexus with that office.

Accordingly, the Courts in Haryana and the Government of Haryana, rather than the Delhi Labour Court and the Government of NCT of Delhi, had jurisdiction over the dispute.

The Labour Court’s award dated 24 February 2007 was upheld, the writ petition and pending application were dismissed, and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the alleged illegal termination.

The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue any remedy available before the competent forum or appropriate Government in accordance with law.