Industrial tribunal jurisdiction derives from statute, not contract, where employment bears a substantial territorial nexus.

The private respondent was appointed as a Medical Representative by the petitioner-company in 1990 and was posted in West Bengal at the relevant time.

Following allegations of financial and other irregularities, the company initiated disciplinary proceedings, suspended him, and issued a chargesheet containing eight charges.

The domestic enquiry was conducted at the company’s Mumbai office despite the employee’s request that it be held in West Bengal, and despite his objections regarding venue, representation, non-supply of relied-upon documents, and procedural fairness.

The Enquiry Officer found him guilty, following which the company dismissed him on 24 March 2011 without granting the extension of time sought by him to respond to the enquiry report.

The Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, held that it had jurisdiction, found the dismissal illegal, and directed reinstatement with back wages.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the employee attained the age of superannuation on 15 April 2021.

Whether the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the industrial dispute despite the Mumbai jurisdiction clause in the appointment letter and the 2 February 2012 notification allocating territorial jurisdiction among Industrial Tribunals.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the domestic enquiry was illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Whether the Tribunal erred in granting reinstatement with full back wages and whether the relief required modification in view of the employee’s subsequent superannuation.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which judicial review is supervisory and not appellate; interference with a fact-finding tribunal’s award is warranted only for jurisdictional error, perversity, illegality, or material procedural irregularity.

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal is statutory and arises from the Act and the order of reference; parties cannot confer jurisdiction on an incompetent forum or contractually exclude a competent statutory forum.

The principles in Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies and Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2013) 9 SCC 32, recognise contractual selection of one among several competent forums, but only where the chosen forum otherwise possesses jurisdiction.

Territorial jurisdiction in industrial disputes depends upon a substantial nexus with the situs of employment and the place where the dispute arose, as recognised in Workmen of Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd. v. Shri Rangavilas Motors (P) Ltd., Bikash Bhushan Ghosh v. Novartis India Ltd., (2007) 5 SCC 591, and Alembic Ltd. v. State of West Bengal.

The principles of natural justice require a real, reasonable and effective opportunity to defend, not merely a technically available opportunity.

Sections 11 and 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act permit the Tribunal to examine the fairness of the enquiry and exercise procedural and remedial discretion.

Reinstatement with back wages is discretionary and not automatic, as held in Novartis India Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 3 SCC 124, Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, (2009) 15 SCC 327, PVK Distillery Ltd. v. Mahendra Ram, (2009) 5 SCC 705, and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Phool Chand, (2018) 18 SCC 299.

Section 17B payments are distinct from final entitlement to back wages.

The Court held that the employee’s employment, posting, and the material circumstances surrounding the termination had a direct and substantial nexus with West Bengal.

The Mumbai registered office and the fact that the appointment letter was issued there could not, by themselves, displace the statutory jurisdiction arising from the situs of employment.

The contractual jurisdiction clause could operate only as a choice among legally competent forums and could not nullify the jurisdiction of a competent Industrial Tribunal.

On the enquiry, the employee had contemporaneously objected to the Mumbai venue, asserted that his witnesses were in West Bengal, complained of non-supply of relied-upon complaints and reports, and sought adequate time to respond to the enquiry report.

His participation and partial cross-examination did not cure the prejudice arising from the cumulative procedural defects.

The Tribunal’s finding that the enquiry violated natural justice was supported by the record and was not perverse or irrational; consequently, interference under Article 226 was unwarranted.

Although back wages are not automatic, the employee had pleaded and deposed that he remained unemployed, while the employer produced no material establishing gainful employment.

The Tribunal’s grant of reinstatement with back wages was therefore not shown to be arbitrary or disproportionate.

Nevertheless, because the employee had superannuated in 2021, physical reinstatement was no longer possible.

The Court accordingly substituted a notional continuation in service up to the date of superannuation, preserving the consequential service and retiral benefits.

It upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the domestic enquiry was contrary to natural justice and declined to interfere with the award of consequential monetary relief.

The writ petition was dismissed.

However, in view of the employee’s superannuation on 15 April 2021, the award was modified: he was to be treated as having continued in service until that date for determining his consequential service and retiral benefits, with monetary and retiral benefits to be paid after adjustment of amounts already received under the award or Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, as permissible in law.