JUDGMENT : (Pranav Trivedi, J.) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act assailing the correctness and validity of the judgment dated 31.08.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No.11465 of 2004. 2. The prayers as prayed for by the respondent – original petitioner in the writ petition was to give direction declaring the award dated 11.03.2004 in Reference case (LCA) No.1405 of 1994 as well as order dated 21.07.2004 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1405 of 2004 as null and void and not effective in the facts of the case. 3. Learned Single Judge after hearing the arguments from advocates of both the parties was pleased to allow the writ petition and quashed the award as well as order passed in the Miscellaneous Civil Application by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad. 4. The factual matrix which has led to filing of the writ petition was that the appellant – original respondent was appointed as a Sales Assistant with monthly pay of Rs.900 with the respondent society. It was the case of the appellant that she was regularly working with the respondent, however, on 07.01.1994, the appellant was orally terminated without following provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). Pursuant to such termination, grievance was raised by the appellant which was referred to the learned Additional Labour Court Commissioner, Ahmedabad and which eventually culminated into filing of Reference (LCA) Case No.1405 of 1994. During the course of proceedings before the learned Labour Court, statement of claim was filed by the appellant as well as written statement was filed by the respondent. Thereafter the appellant led its oral evidence which was cross-examined by the respondent. However, respondent failed to led its oral or documentary evidence and their rights were subsequently closed and they did not appear even at the stage of primary hearing. Therefore, the award was passed on 11.03.2004 for reinstating the appellant with 50% back- wages as well as continuity of service. 5. Pursuant to the award passed by the learned Labour Court on 11.03.2004, Miscellaneous Civil Application was preferred by the respondent under Rule 26-A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 (‘the Rules’, for short). It was the case of the respondent that since an award was ex parte the same needs to be quashed and the matter should have byparte hearing. It was the case of the respondent that since an award was ex parte the same needs to be quashed and the matter should have byparte hearing. After hearing both the parties, learned Labour Court was pleased to reject the Miscellaneous Civil Application. Therefore, the award passed by the learned Labour Court as well as the order passed in the Miscellaneous Civil Application both of them came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after hearing arguments from both the sides primarily held that learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to hear the Reference as the respondent was co-operative society under the the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (‘the Madhya Pradesh Societies Act’, for short). On the basis of such observations, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow writ petition. Such order passed in writ petition being Special Civil Application No.11465 of 2004 is assailed in the present appeal. 6. We have heard learned senior advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi with learned advocate Mr.Ishan Joshi for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.S.P.Mishra with learned advocate Mr.Anand L. Sharma for the respondent. 7. It was submitted by learned senior advocate Mr.Gautam Joshi that the learned Single Judge could not have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of jurisdiction. It was submitted that respondent had submitted to the jurisdiction of the labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act by participating in the proceedings by filing written statement in the Reference case. Further, an application was also moved under Rule 26-A of the Rules for setting aside the alleged ex parte orders on merits. In the application as well as filing the written statement there was no contention regarding jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court. Meaning thereby, they had acceded to the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court. In such situation, as an afterthought it was not permissible for the respondent to raise issue of jurisdiction before the learned Single Judge when they themselves have acceded to the jurisdiction without raising the issue for the same. Meaning thereby, they had acceded to the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court. In such situation, as an afterthought it was not permissible for the respondent to raise issue of jurisdiction before the learned Single Judge when they themselves have acceded to the jurisdiction without raising the issue for the same. It was further submitted by Mr.Joshi, learned senior advocate that reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.C.Tiwari vs. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others reported in 1997 (5) SCC 125 as well as that of in the case of Sagarmal vs. District Sahakari Kendriya Bank Ltd. Mandsaur reported in 1997 (9) SCC 354 are irrelevant. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in ignoring the facts that both these judgments had been delivered on the facts of the case from the proceedings which has arisen at Madhya Pradesh itself. Therefore, reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on both the judgments was improper. It was also submitted by learned senior advocate Mr.Joshi that the learned Single Judge has materially erred in coming to conclusion that respondent society was not deemed multi-State Cooperative Society withing the meaning of the Central Act. 8. Per contra, Mr.S.D.Mishra, learned advocate appearing with Mr.Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent has vehemently opposed the appeal. Relying upon the bylaws along with the rejoinder filed in the writ petition, it was submitted that bylaws, more particularly, bylaw nos.1 and 37 would make it abundantly clear that any dispute with regard to formation, management, conduct of the society would be done as per Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Societies Act. Therefore, there was no jurisdiction with the learned Labour Court to adjudicate the issue. On the basis of such submission, Mr.Mishra, learned advocate prays to dismiss the appeal. 9.1 We have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties as well as perused the documents on record. The primary bone of contention in the matter is with regard to jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court. After having careful observation, it can be seen that the cause of action that has arisen was in Ahmedabad. The unit of the society was in Ahmedabad. The appellant was appointed in Ahmedabad and was working in Ahmedabad and her oral termination which was subject matter of dispute was also in Ahmedabad. After having careful observation, it can be seen that the cause of action that has arisen was in Ahmedabad. The unit of the society was in Ahmedabad. The appellant was appointed in Ahmedabad and was working in Ahmedabad and her oral termination which was subject matter of dispute was also in Ahmedabad. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Labour Court was outsed with jurisdiction. It can be further observed that when the Assistant Labour Court Commissioner referred the dispute to the Labour Court there was no question raised with regard to jurisdiction. During the pendency of the Reference, even written statement was filed and the averments made in the written statement were not at all related to jurisdiction. They were absolutely on merits. Even after the award was passed an application under Rule 26-A of the Rules was preferred. Even in such application, the issue of jurisdiction was not at all raised. Therefore, when the part cause of action has happened in the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and even the issues were agitated on merits, there cannot be an iota of doubt that learned Labour Court was vested with jurisdiction. Therefore, in our humble consideration, the learned Single Judge made an error in allowing the writ petition only on the ground of want of jurisdiction. 9.2 As far as the applicability of the decision as relied upon before the learned Single Judge is concerned, they are related to an issue pertaining to Madhya Pradesh. In those judgments, the issue of part cause of action in another State was not at all there. Therefore, the judgment as relied upon by learned Single Judge for deciding the issue of jurisdiction would not be applicable in the facts of the present appeal. Therefore, reliance placed by learned Single Judge on such judgments is unwarranted. Even, on merits, if the perusal is made with regard to award passed by the learned Labour Court, it can be ascertained that the appellant had led documentary as well as oral evidence which has gone uncontroverted. Therefore, even on merits, the award passed by the learned Labour Court was just and proper. 9.3 Therefore, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and, therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. Therefore, even on merits, the award passed by the learned Labour Court was just and proper. 9.3 Therefore, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and, therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the award dated 11.03.2004 in Reference case (LCA) No.1405 of 1994 passed by the learned Labour Court is confirmed. Respondent is directed to comply with direction of Labour Court within four weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 10. In view of the above observations made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. Civil Application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.