Situs of Employment and Place of Termination Determine Territorial Jurisdiction and Appropriate Government for Industrial Disputes.

The Petitioner claimed to have worked for the Respondent management from 1978 until November 2009

He alleged that while working at the Faridabad (Haryana) establishment, he was orally terminated on 27.11.2009

Following a demand notice and failed conciliation, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi referred the dispute to the Labour Court

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the cause of action arose in Haryana

The Labour Court, via Award dated 03.07.2015, ruled that the Delhi Government was not the "appropriate Government" as the situs of employment was Faridabad

The Petitioner challenged this Award via the present writ petition

1. Whether the Government of NCT of Delhi was the "appropriate Government" competent to refer the industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

2. Whether the territorial jurisdiction of a Labour Court is determined by the situs of employment and the place where the cause of action substantially arises

Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defining "appropriate Government"

The principle that territorial jurisdiction is determined by the "situs of employment" and where the dispute substantially arises, as established in V.G. Jagdishan v. Indofos Industries Ltd.

The mere existence of a head office in a state does not confer jurisdiction if the cause of action (termination) occurred elsewhere as per Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee

The limitations of judicial review under Article 226 as per Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, prohibiting re-appreciation of evidence unless there is perversity

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s own statement of claim explicitly admitted he was working in Faridabad, Haryana, at the time of the alleged termination

This judicial admission regarding the situs of employment was deemed binding

The Petitioner’s reliance on old delivery challans (1980) and bills (1996) with Delhi addresses was rejected because they were not contemporaneous to the 2009 dispute and did not override the admitted situs of employment

Since the employment and the termination both occurred in Haryana, the Government of NCT of Delhi lacked the nexus required to be the "appropriate Government"

The Labour Court correctly declined to rule on merits after finding it lacked jurisdiction, as any such adjudication would be a nullity

The Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that territorial jurisdiction in industrial disputes correlates to the place where the worker was last employed and where the termination took effect

The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum/Government in Haryana

No order as to costs was made