Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1179 (PNJ)

Naresh Prabhakar v. Industrial Tribunal

2014-08-11

G.S.SANDHAWALIA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. Civil Misc. No. 9455-CWP of 2014 1. Application for placing on record appointment letter (Annexure P3) is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Appointment letter (Annexure P3) is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No. 9709 of 2014 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 19.9.2012 (Annexure P1) whereby the Industrial Tribunal at Amritsar has decided issue No. 2 against the petitioner and held that as per the appointment letter, the headquarters of the petitioner was at Jammu and mere fact that the workman had worked at Amritsar and his residence was at Amritsar, that could not change the headquarters. It was further held that the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction to try the reference. Issues No. 1, 1-A and 3 were not decided in view of the fact that the issue No. 2 had been decided against the petitioner-workman. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that since the workman was appointed as Area Business Manager, therefore, his work was to be done within Amritsar District and the Labour Court at Amritsar would have the jurisdiction and the impugned award was not justified and the reference should have been decided on merits. 4. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out to interfere in the findings recorded by the Labour Court. The appointment letter dated 8.7.2003, which is now being placed on record would go to show that the appointment of the petitioner was as Area Business Manager, and he was to be based at Jammu headquarters. The defence of the Management is that service of the workman was transferred to Chennai and on his non-reporting there, his service was terminated. Apart from that, a plea was also taken that the petitioner was not a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short "the Act"). Though the Labour Court has not decided the said issue, it is apparent that the designation of the workman was as such that of managerial capacity and therefore, it is apparent that he is not a workman. He was assigned work having headquarters at Jammu and therefore, the Labour Court at Amritsar was justified in not deciding the issue on merits by holding that the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction. 5. He was assigned work having headquarters at Jammu and therefore, the Labour Court at Amritsar was justified in not deciding the issue on merits by holding that the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction. 5. Even otherwise, it is apparent that the petitioner-workman is only engaging in luxury litigation. The award was passed on 19.9.2012. The present writ petition has been filed incomplete on 14.12.2012 and no effort was made to get it listed and remove the objections and the same has been only refilled in May 2014. Therefore, the effort is apparently to drag the litigation. The cross-examination has also not been placed on record to show that what was the nature of duties of the workman. 6. This Court is of the opinion that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not liable to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the present case since the workman has been given liberty to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, no fault can be found in the reasoning given by the Labour Court. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.