JUDGMENT Third respondent was an employee of the petitioner M.P. State Road Transport Corporation as Ticket Examiner in the Satna Depot. At the end of the disciplinary enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 20.8.1973. He filed an application under section 31 (3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court, Bhopal challenging the dismissal. The Labour Court held that the dismissal was wrong and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The Industrial Court dismissed the appeal filed by the employer. Hence, this writ petition. The only contention urged in the writ petition is that the Labour Court, Bhopal which has territorial jurisdiction only in relation to Bhopal revenue district, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application of the employee working in Satna district. At the relevant time, the Labour Court at Shahdol had territorial jurisdiction over Satna revenue district. It is, therefore, contended that the application should have been filed before the Labour Court, Shahdol and that the Labour Court Bhopal had no jurisdiction. The petitioner canvasses the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench in M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Virendra Singh Chouhan (1978 MPILC 20). That case related to dismissal of an employee working at Bhind and the dismissal was challenged in Labour Court Bhopal where the Head Office of the Corporation is situated. It is contended that since the Labour Court, Gwalior had jurisdiction over Bhind, Labour Court at Bhopal had no jurisdiction. This Court repelled the contention by holding that the Labour Court within the territorial jurisdiction of which either of the parties is working or located would be competent to entertain a dispute and since the Corporation had its Head Office at Bhopal, the dispute was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court at Bhopal. On a careful consideration of the above decision, we are inclined to agree with the same. It is contended that in Virendra Singh Chouhan's case this Court imported the principles of Code of Civil Procedure into the labour enactment. That a litigation can be launched at a place where the respondent or defendant resides or carries out its activity is fundamental and cannot be inapplicable to cases coming up before the Labour Court. It is not the petitioner's case that there are specific provisions in M.P. Industrial Relations Act governing the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. That a litigation can be launched at a place where the respondent or defendant resides or carries out its activity is fundamental and cannot be inapplicable to cases coming up before the Labour Court. It is not the petitioner's case that there are specific provisions in M.P. Industrial Relations Act governing the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. With respect, we follow the decision referred to above and over rule the contention of the petitioner that the Labpur Court Bhopal had no jurisdiction. The petition is without merit and is dismissed but without costs. Security amount, it any, deposited will be refunded.