JUDGMENT : BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.11.2015 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in OWP No. 1113/2004. That was a writ petition filed by the respondent (Engineers India Limited), challenging the order dated 03.09.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Jammu. The said order dated 03.09.2004 had decided the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which had been raised as a preliminary objection by the respondent herein. The Tribunal rejected the plea raised by the respondent and held that the said Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction with regard to the Industrial Dispute, which had been referred to it by the J&K Government, being the appropriate Government. 2. This case has had a chequered history. The appellant is an ex-serviceman and he was re-employed by the respondent on 11.08.1976. His services were terminated on 11.02.1990. The present dispute pertains to the issue of termination, which, according to the appellant, was wrongful. Initially the matter had travelled to the Division Bench from an order of the Tribunal, which was set aside by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The Division Bench, by virtue of its order dated 29.05.2002 in LPA(OW) No. 604/1999, remanded the matter to the Tribunal in the following manner:- “So far as the respondent is concerned, the relevant entry in the Schedule annexed to the above notification is entry 32. A perusal of the above notification makes it apparent that the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be appropriate Government and it can refer the dispute to the Tribunal. The appellant is, therefore, left free to approach the State Government in its capacity as the appropriate Government. In case this course is adopted, the appropriate Government would refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court. As and when the dispute stands referred, the other question as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction or not or it merits acceptance would be decided by the Tribunal.” 3. It is, therefore, clear that the question as to whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction or not, have to be decided by the Tribunal as per the decision of the Division Bench dated 29.05.2002. Subsequent thereto, the Tribunal disposed of the preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction by virtue of an order dated 03.09.2004. It is, therefore, clear that the question as to whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction or not, have to be decided by the Tribunal as per the decision of the Division Bench dated 29.05.2002. Subsequent thereto, the Tribunal disposed of the preliminary issue regarding territorial jurisdiction by virtue of an order dated 03.09.2004. In that decision it has been clearly noted that the admitted position in the case was that the petitioner ( appellant herein), was a permanent resident of Gangyal area of Jammu. The contract of appointment was served upon him at Jammu and it is from Jammu where he consented to the said offer and accepted the joining of his employment. It was also noted that the notice of termination of his services was also served upon him at Jammu. The Tribunal, therefore, held that there was no reason to hold that part of the cause of action had not accrued to the petitioner (appellant herein) at Jammu. 4. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent (EIL) filed a writ petition (OWP No. 1113/2004) before this Court. By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 17.11.2015, a learned Single Judge of this Court decided the said writ petition in favour of the respondent by holding that, the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Jammu did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the Industrial dispute which had been referred to it by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. It is against this order dated 17.11.2015 that the appellant is before us. 5. After hearing the appellant in person as also the learned counsel for the respondent and examining the impugned order and the relevant record in detail, we find that the learned Single Judge has focused his entire attention only on the issue of, where the decision to terminate the services of the appellant was taken as also where the appellant actually worked. 6. It is not in dispute that the decision to terminate the services was not taken at Jammu and that the appellant did not work at all within the State of Jammu and Kashmir. However, that would only constitute part of the cause of action. An essential and integral part of cause of action would also accrue due to the formation of the contract of employment. However, that would only constitute part of the cause of action. An essential and integral part of cause of action would also accrue due to the formation of the contract of employment. It is an admitted fact that the offer of appointment was received by the appellant at Jammu and his acceptance was also communicated from Jammu. That certainly forms part of the cause of action. This is so because unless and until the contract of employment is established as a fact, the termination thereof would have no meaning. The formation of the contract of employment forms an integral part of the cause of action which accrued to the appellant. Since that integral part took place in Jammu, the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Jammu would certainly have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the industrial dispute which has been referred to it by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. 7. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is, therefore, in our view, not backed by law. Consequently, the impugned decision dated 17.11.2015 is set aside. It is clarified that the said Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to proceed further with the industrial dispute which had been referred to it. Since this matter has been going on for a long time, we hope that the said Tribunal shall take up the matter expeditiously and dispose of the same preferably within two months. Both the parties shall fully cooperate with the Tribunal in ensuring that the matter is disposed of by it within the said time. 8. The appeal is allowed as above. 9. In the first instance the partiers shall appear before the Tribunal on 08.02.2018.