Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 713 (MP)

Arun Sahlot v. Om Prakash Pal

2019-10-03

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER 1. Heard on the office objection about the maintainability of petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. 2. The petitioner has challenged the interlocutory order dated 27.8.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Indore Bench. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner have their Head Office at Bhopal and the part of cause of action has arisen at Bhopal, therefore, the present miscellaneous petition is maintainable before this Court. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the settled tactis. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the respondent employee has filed an application under sections 10, 33(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act before the Labour Court, Ujjain seeking the wages as per the Madisana and Majithia Wage Board for certain period. 5. The evidence of both the parties has already been recorded by the Labour Court, Ujjain and at that stage an application being I.A. No.1 and 2 were filed by the respondent seeking a direction to the petitioners to produce certain documents as also seeking to examine the Chartered Accountant in support of the calculation of the amount. The Labour Court by the impugned order dated 27.8.2019 has allowed the said application. 6. In the present miscellaneous petition only the interlocutory order dated 27.8.2019 is under challenge. Under Article 227(1) of the Constitution of India, High Court has the superintendence over the Courts and Tribunal throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. So far as, the labour Court, Ujjain is concerned the Indore Bench of this High Court exercises the jurisdiction over it. Hence, the territorial jurisdiction to examine the correctness of interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain does not lie with this Principal Seat. 7. So far as the judgment in the matter of M/s. Annapurna Malleables Pvt. Ltd. Raipur and another v. State Bank of India and others, 2005(3) M.P.H.T. 151 relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in that case, the very initiation of proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal was under challenge. Similarly, in the matter of M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Industrial Court, Indore and ors., reported in 1996 M.P.L.J. Short Note-(4), the issue in respect of territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court for entertaining the dispute was raised. Similarly, in the matter of M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Industrial Court, Indore and ors., reported in 1996 M.P.L.J. Short Note-(4), the issue in respect of territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court for entertaining the dispute was raised. Hence, all these judgments are on different issue and none of these judgments relates to entertaining the writ petition against the interlocutory order passed by a Court which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of High Court. It is worth noting that initiation or maintainability of the proceedings before the Labour Court, Ujjain is not an issue in the present petition but it is only the interlocutory order of the Labour Court, Ujjain which is an issue, therefore, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Principal Bench of this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed, however with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue before the Bench at Indore. Certified copy of the impugned order be returned to learned counsel for the petitioner on placing on record a photocopy of the same.