ORDER W.P. No. 42694 of 2004: The management of Express Publications (Madurai) Limited is before me challenging the order of the Second Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D. No. 123 of 2001, dated 13-5-2004 (Annexure-A to W.P. No. 42694 of 2004). Petitioner is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is engaged in the activity of printing and publishing newspapers. Registered Office of the petitioner is at Chennai. Petitioner-company is having branches/publishing units throughout India. One such unit is at Shimoga. Service conditions of the workmen are governed by the Certified Standing Orders. Respondent in W.P. No. 42694 of 2004, V. Ananda Rao is the son of a former Driver of one D. Vijayendra Rao who was who was working with the petitioner-company. He died in harness. After the death of Vijayendra Rao, his widow and the respondent-V. Ananda Rao have approached the respondent for compassionate employment. Petitioner-company provided job to the respondent. He joined as apprentice with the petitioner-company at Bangalore. He was given appointment letter dated 26-6-1989 appointing him as Unskilled Baller. Terms contained in the order provided transfer to any place in India. The transport department of the petitioner closed all routes due to heavy rise in maintenance and cost of fuel. Due to re-organisation in the Transport Department, the respondent along with his two co-employees were transferred to Shimoga by an order dated 30-12-1999. After transfer to Shimoga, respondent-Ananda Rao absented himself from work. He was persuaded to work and to pay greater attention to his work. Respondent never heeded to it. This resulted in dislocation of work. Respondent reported to duty on 27-1-2000. He was promoted as Semi-Teleprinter Operator. Inspite of repeated counseling and motivating him by means of promotion and other welfare measures, respondent-Ananda Rao did not change his attitude. He remained absent continuously. He was transferred to Shimoga by an order dated 19-1-2000. He reported for duty on 27 -2-2000. He was irregular in attending to his duties. He has not even worked for more than 20 per cent of the working days in terms of the attendance record. When he remained absent, the company called upon him to attend to his duties diligently. He gave explanation pleading his inability to attend to his duty at Shimoga on the ground of domestic problems. This explanation demonstrated that the respondent had absolutely no intention to attend to his duties at Shimoga. When he remained absent, the company called upon him to attend to his duties diligently. He gave explanation pleading his inability to attend to his duty at Shimoga on the ground of domestic problems. This explanation demonstrated that the respondent had absolutely no intention to attend to his duties at Shimoga. In those circumstances, according to the petitioner, respondent Ananda Rao did not improve in his attendance and there was dislocation of work at Shimoga. It was deemed that he left his services of the petitioner company on his own account without notice and thereby the contract of service came to an end as per the certified standing orders of the company. Petitioner issued a letter on 15-5-2001 holding that the respondent had lost his lien over his appointment. The said order was challenged in I.D. No. 123 of 2001 under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Parties entered appearance and statements were filed. Respondent Ananda Rao filed an application before the Labour Court seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay interim relief at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Same was objected to by the petitioner. Learned Judge, after hearing, has chosen to award a sum of Rs. 2,250/- per month towards interim maintenance to the respondent-Ananda Rao from the date of application. Order granting maintenance is challenged before me in Writ Petition No. 42694 of 2004. W.P. No. 42742 of 2004: 2. Writ Petition No. 42742 of 2004 is filed by the same company challenging the order dated 13-5-2004 passed in I.D. No. 133 of 2001 with regard to interim application filed by the respondent workman V. Srinivasan. 3. Respondent workman Srinivasan in Writ Petition No. 42742 is the son of a former driver of the petitioner by name Veeraswamy. Respondent's father sought for compassionate employment to his son, respondent-Srinivasan. Petitioner, on compassionate grounds, has taken the respondent Srinivasan as an Apprentice Unskilled Baller and posted him at Belgaum Office. Terms provided for transfer. He was transferred to Shimoga due to administrative exigencies by an order dated 30-12-1999. He was irregular in attendance and he was absenting unauthorisedly. Standing Orders provided loss of lien over appointments. According to the petitioner, respondent-Srinivasan had lost his lien over the post held by him. An order was issued in this regard. Terms provided for transfer. He was transferred to Shimoga due to administrative exigencies by an order dated 30-12-1999. He was irregular in attendance and he was absenting unauthorisedly. Standing Orders provided loss of lien over appointments. According to the petitioner, respondent-Srinivasan had lost his lien over the post held by him. An order was issued in this regard. Same was challenged under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act by way of an application in I.D. No. 133 of 2001. Parties entered appearance and statements were filed. Workman Srinivasan filed an application seeking for interim maintenance from the petitioner. Same was contested. After contest, Labour Court has granted interim maintenance at Rs. 2,150/- per month. This order is challenged before me in Writ Petition No. 42742 of 2004. 4. Notice was issued. Respondents entered appearance in both these I petitions. Respondents contested these petitions. These two petitions were heard for final disposal. 5. Sri B.C. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-company placed before me two arguments. First argument is that Bangalore Court has no jurisdiction since no cause of action has occurred in the ' jurisdiction of Bangalore Court. 6. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner-company, Bangalore Court lacks jurisdiction in terms of the Notification issued under the Industrial Disputes Act. He elaborates by saying that, if at all, it is only the Court at Shimoga which had jurisdiction to try the dispute in the matter. Insofar as maintenance is concerned, he would say that the present set of circumstances did not warrant any maintenance. He relies on a few judgments. 7. Per contra, Sri A.J. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the respondents workmen, would argue that the respondents initially had been appointed at Bangalore, and that therefore, it cannot be said that Bangalore Court has no jurisdiction. He would also rely on a few judgments in the case on hand. Learned Counsel would further say that the workmen are entitled for interim maintenance. 8. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. 9. Two issues arise for my consideration in the matter with regard to legality and validity of the impugned orders. One is with regard to jurisdiction of Bangalore Court in the matter and the second is about the merits of the matter. 10. Jurisdiction of Bangalore Court.-Jurisdiction issue is to be considered always with reference to the material facts placed before Courts of law. One is with regard to jurisdiction of Bangalore Court in the matter and the second is about the merits of the matter. 10. Jurisdiction of Bangalore Court.-Jurisdiction issue is to be considered always with reference to the material facts placed before Courts of law. In the case on hand, both the respondents workmen were appointed in terms of the orders dated 25-6-1988 and 31-12-1997 respectively. V. Srinivasan was appointed by Express Publications (Madurai) Limited, Belgaum. V. Ananda Rao is appointed by Indian Express (Madurai) Private Limited, Bangalore. Srinivasan was transferred from Belgaum to Shimoga in terms of the transfer order dated 15-10-1999 and Ananda Rao was transferred from Bangalore to Shimoga in terms of the order dated 19-1-2000. Admitted facts would reveal that the Regional Office of the Express Publications (Madurai) Limited is situated in Bangalore. Argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the light of the registered office being situated at Chennai, and in the light of the workman working at Shimoga, Bangalore Courts have no jurisdiction. The said contention was opposed by the workmen. Learned Judge of the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that Bangalore Court has necessary jurisdiction in the matter on the ground that the Regional Office of the Company is situated at Belgaum. Let me see as to whether this finding is sustainable or not. 11. The Industrial Disputes Act provides for reference under Section 10 of the Act. Section 7 thereof provides for constitution of Labour Courts. A notification has been issued with regard to jurisdiction by the State Government. The State Government in terms of the Notification at Annexure-M in W.P. No. 42694 of 2004 would show that the Labour Court, Mangalore can entertain the petition under Section 10(4-A) in respect of the revenue district of Dakshina Kannada and Shimoga. Notification no doubt supports the petitioner in the event of cause of action occurring only in the jurisdiction of Shimoga. 12. Parties are governed by the Standing Orders certified by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Certifying Officer, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, in terms of the Communication dated 1-5-1967. There is no quarrel over this. In fact, the communication has been addressed to the Officer at Bangalore. It is the case of the management that the Registered Office is at Chennai and the regional office is admittedly in Bangalore. There is no quarrel over this. In fact, the communication has been addressed to the Officer at Bangalore. It is the case of the management that the Registered Office is at Chennai and the regional office is admittedly in Bangalore. Nowhere in the counter-statement is it stated that the regional office at Bangalore has no control over the branches either at Shimoga or at Belgaum. In the circumstances, this Court has to see as to whether Bangalore Courts have jurisdiction or not. 13. Case-laws are not wanting in this regard. M/s. Lipton Limited and Another v Their Employees\ deal with jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in terms of the findings contained in the said judgment. In para 8, the Supreme Court notices the facts and therefore came to a conclusion that in the light of the control from Delhi, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction though the registered office was situated in London with its head office at Calcutta. In Workmen of Shri Ranga Vilas Motors (Private) Limited v Shri Ranga Vilas Motors (Private) Limited and Others2, the Supreme Court notices the observations made in Indian Cable Company Limited v Its Workmen3. The observations made in paragraph 14 are as follows.- "(14) Therefore, the appeal must succeed unless the company can satisfy us that the points decided against it should have been decided in its favour. This takes us to the other points. Mr. O.P. Malhotra strongly urges that the State Government of Mysore was not the appropriate Government to make the reference. He says that although the dispute started at Bangalore, the 'resolution sponsoring this dispute was passed in Krishnagiri, and, that the proper test to be applied in the case of individual disputes is where the dispute has been sponsored. It seems to us that on the facts of this case it is clear that there was a separate establishment at Bangalore and Mahalingam was working there. There were a number of other workmen working in this place. The order of transfer, it is true, was made in Krishnagiri at the head office, but the order was to operate on a workman working in Bangalore. In our view the High Court was right in holding that the proper question to raise is: where did the dispute arise? Ordinarily if there is a separate establishment and the workman is working in that establishment, the dispute would arise at that place. In our view the High Court was right in holding that the proper question to raise is: where did the dispute arise? Ordinarily if there is a separate establishment and the workman is working in that establishment, the dispute would arise at that place. As the High Court observed, there should clearly be some nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State and not necessarily between the territory of the State and the industry concerning which the dispute arose. This Court in Indian Cable Company Limited u Its Workmen, 1962-I-LLJ-409 (SC), held as follows.- "The Act contained no provisions bearing on this question, which must, consequently, be decided on the principles governing the jurisdiction of Courts to entertain actions or proceedings. Dealing with a similar question under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Chagla, C.J., observed in Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Limited v. Vin, 1956-I-LLJ-557 (Bom.) : AIR 1955 Bom. 463: "But what we are concerned with to decide is: where did the dispute substantially arise? Now, the Act does not deal with the cause of action, nor does it indicate what factors will confer jurisdiction upon the Labour Court. But applying the well-known tests of jurisdiction, a Court or Tribunal would have jurisdiction if the parties reside within jurisdiction or if the subject-matter of the dispute substantially arises within jurisdiction". In our opinion, those principles are applicable for deciding which of the States has jurisdiction to make a reference under Section 10 of the Act. Applying the above principles to the facts of this case it is quite clear that the subject-matter of the dispute in this case substantially arose within the jurisdiction of the Mysore Government" ". 14. From a reading of these judgments, what is clear to this Court is that a statutory remedy before the Labour Court is available with the test of jurisdiction as enunciated in those judgments i.e., if the parties reside within jurisdiction or if the subject-matter of dispute substantially arises within its jurisdiction, then judgment is available. 15. In the present case, it is seen that the workmen are governed by the Standing Orders as certified in favour of the Regional Office at Bangalore. In respect of one workman, he was appointed at Bangalore and he was only transferred to Shimoga. He was not solely employed at Shimoga for Shimoga Office only. 15. In the present case, it is seen that the workmen are governed by the Standing Orders as certified in favour of the Regional Office at Bangalore. In respect of one workman, he was appointed at Bangalore and he was only transferred to Shimoga. He was not solely employed at Shimoga for Shimoga Office only. In the case of the second workman, though he was appointed at Belgaum he was transferred to Shimoga. Labour Court notices that Bangalore Office has control over these branches. In the counter-statement, nowhere it is stated that each branch is independent by itself in the matter. Taking into consideration the common standing orders certified in favour of the office at Bangalore, and also the residence of the second party being at Bangalore, it cannot be said that Bangalore Court totally lacks jurisdiction as sought to be argued by the petitioner. Bangalore Courts certainly have jurisdiction. 16. At this juncture, I should notice the judgment of Madras High Court that is pressed into service by the management, N. Ramathilagam v. Labour Officer (Conciliation), Kuralagam, Chennai and Others1. It is no doubt true that in the said judgment it is stated that territorial jurisdiction for raising a dispute would lie at the place where workmen are dismissed. In that case, workmen were dismissed at Arakonam. In those circumstances, Labour Court at Vellore alone has jurisdiction. The Madras High Court ruled that the 'convenience of the employee' is not the determining factor for territorial jurisdiction for raising an industrial dispute. That fact, if read fully, would not be applicable to the facts of this case. In the said case, the Court notices the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Sri Ranga Vilas Motors case, and also a decision in Management of Best and Crompton Engineering Limited v 'Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court2. After noticing the same, learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the factory at Arakonam was governed by separate standing orders and also by independent settlement. The Court also notices that even in the petition filed by the employee before the Labour Officer, Chennai, not only in the cause title the address at Arakonam, is given but also in the body of the petition, the petitioner has given only Arakonam address as the address for service of notice. The Court also notices that even in the petition filed by the employee before the Labour Officer, Chennai, not only in the cause title the address at Arakonam, is given but also in the body of the petition, the petitioner has given only Arakonam address as the address for service of notice. After noticing these material facts, the Court ruled that there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to contend that the Labour Officer at Chennai also has jurisdiction. In the case on hand, workmen were able to show substantial cause of action that has occurred at Bangalore in the light of Standing Orders and in the light of Regional Office situated at Bangalore having control over other branches. In the circumstances, the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of N. Ramathilagam is not available to the present set of facts in these two petitions. Therefore, I have no hesitation in accepting the argument of Sri Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the workmen, that Bangalore Courts have jurisdiction in the matter. 17. Merits of the matter.-According to management, workmen admittedly have lost lien over their employment in terms of Clause 10 of the Standing Orders. In fact, orders are available at Annexures-C and E respectively in W.P. No. 42742 of 2004 and W.P. No. 42694 of 2004. Prima facie reading of these two orders would show that the Management has chosen to treat their case as one of loss of lien of their appointments on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty. Loss of lien is provided in terms of Clause 10 of the Standing Orders. Prima facie reading of the said clause in the given facts would show that loss of lien i~ available only in the event of the workmen remaining absent beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended. It is not the case of the management that the workmen were on leave and that subsequently they have failed to report for duty. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the management that these two workmen were unauthorisedly absenting from duty, and that therefore, the Labour Court is right in holding that the workmen are entitled for interim relief in terms of its findings is made out by the workmen. Prima facie, it is seen that law of lien thereof may not be available to the management. 18. Prima facie, it is seen that law of lien thereof may not be available to the management. 18. It is also seen that this matter is pending before the Labour Court for more than three years. Labour Court also has chosen to grant only a sum of Rs. 2,250/- in J.D. No. 123 of 2001 and Rs. 2,150/- in J.D. No. 133 of 2001 towards maintenance in the case on hand. On the facts of the case, grant of maintenance in the given circumstances cannot be found fault with by this Court as contended by the workmen. In fad this Court in the case of The Management of Kanoria Industries Limited, Bagalkot v Bagalkot Cement Company Workers Union and Another1, has chosen to hold that Section 10(4) centers wide powers upon Labour Courts with regard to grant of interim relief. 19. During the pendency of the writ petition parties have tried to effect an amicable settlement. Ultimately, there were some proposals and those proposals did not result in a settlement between the parties. In the circumstances, this Court is compelled to pronounce this order. This Court makes it very clear that if the parties want· to settle the matter at later date, this order is not to come in the way of settlement between the parties. 20. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the orders of the Labour Court need not be interfered with by this Court. Petition accordingly stands rejected. At the same time, this Court wants the Labour Court to expedite the trial as otherwise there is every likelihood of delay in completing the proceedings. The Labour Court is therefore directed to dispose of the matter within one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.