Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 736 (DEL)

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Union of India

2009-07-14

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2009
JUDGMENT S.N. Aggarwal, J. CM No. 724/2009 in WP(C) No. 7050/2008 1. This is an application under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 filed by the workman seeking directions to the management to pay him full wages as last drawn by him admissible to him under the Rules till the decision of the present writ petition. 2. Reply to this application has not been filed by the management. Mr. Sandeep Prabhakar learned Counsel appearing on the behalf of the management on instructions from his client says that the Court may pass appropriate order under Section 17-B even without waiting for reply of the management. 3. The management in this writ petition has assailed an award dated 05.09.2008 passed by Mr. S.K. Kaushik, POLC XII, Delhi directing reinstatement of the workman (respondent No. 2 herein) with 40% back wages. The award has been challenged on various grounds including on the ground of jurisdiction of the court below to entertain the reference. The objection of jurisdiction taken by the management shall be considered while deciding the main writ petition. 4. The workman in his application under Section 17-B which is supported by his affidavit has stated that he has remained unemployed ever since his services were illegally terminated by the management i.e. since 19.12.2003. Since the affidavit of non-employment filed by the workman has remained uncontroverted, I have no reason to doubt the same. Under the circumstances, the workman is entitled to have the benefit of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management (the petitioner herein) is accordingly directed to pay the last drawn salary admissible to the workman as per rules from the date of award till the decision of the present writ petition. The arrears be paid to him within six weeks. 5. In view of the above, this application stands disposed of. WP(C) No. 7050/2008 6. This writ petition filed by the management (the petitioner herein) is directed against an award dated 05.09.2008 passed by Mr. S.K. Kaushik, POLC XII, Delhi directing reinstatement of the workman (respondent No. 2 herein) with 40% back wages. 7. The impugned award is assailed by the petitioner on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the court below to entertain the reference made to it by the appropriate Government for adjudication of industrial dispute relating to termination of respondent No. 2 from the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 19.12.2003. 8. 7. The impugned award is assailed by the petitioner on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the court below to entertain the reference made to it by the appropriate Government for adjudication of industrial dispute relating to termination of respondent No. 2 from the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 19.12.2003. 8. The brief facts of the case relevant for the decision of the objection of territorial jurisdiction taken by the management are that the workman (respondent No. 2 herein) was appointed as fitter with the petitioner at his Head Office at Delhi on 18.12.1991 and due to administrative exigencies, he was transferred from Delhi to Faridabad on 17.10.2002. He continued working at Faridabad till his services were terminated by the management w.e.f. 19.12.2003 due to closure of the Faridabad unit of the petitioner management. The workman raised an industrial dispute with regard to his termination which was referred by the appropriate Government in Delhi to the Labour Court for adjudication. 9. The question that arises for consideration is whether the reference could have been entertained by Delhi Court in view of an admitted factual position by the workman that at the time of his termination, he was posted at Faridabad. This question of territorial jurisdiction under identical fact situation came up for consideration before this Court on earlier occasion in Braham Parkash v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. 143 (2007) DLT 311. In that case also the workman was appointed initially by the Head Office at Delhi but at the time of his termination, he was posted by the management at Neemrana, Alwar, Rajasthan and in those facts, it was held by this Court that only the Rajasthan Court has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the industrial dispute raised by the workman. While deciding the Braham Prakashs case, this Court has noted a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India wherein it was held that situs of employment of the workman at the time of termination determines the question of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and decide the reference. Similar view has been taken by this Court in two other cases in G.S. Batra v. R.N. Mehrotra 2004 LLR 445 and DLF Universal Ltd. v. The Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi and Ors. 2002 LLR 407. Mr. Similar view has been taken by this Court in two other cases in G.S. Batra v. R.N. Mehrotra 2004 LLR 445 and DLF Universal Ltd. v. The Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi and Ors. 2002 LLR 407. Mr. S.N. Bhardwaj appearing on behalf of the workman has not cited any judgment to the contrary. Under the circumstances, this court has no option but to act upon the precedents referred and relied upon by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the management. 10. In view of the above, the impugned award directing reinstatement of the workman with 40 % back wages passed by the Labour Court at Delhi cannot be sustained for want of its territorial jurisdiction. The impugned award is therefore set aside. Liberty is granted to the workman to raise an industrial dispute before the appropriate Government in the jurisdiction where he was posted at the time of his impugned termination as per law. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.