Case Note & Summary
The petition was filed by Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd., a pharmaceutical company, challenging an order of the Industrial Court at Mumbai dated 4 May 2022, which rejected the company's preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction. The respondent, Pawan Sharma, was an employee of the company posted at Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. The company issued a transfer order at its Mumbai office transferring the respondent from Sriganganagar to Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The respondent filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Industrial Court at Mumbai, alleging that the transfer constituted an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV. The company raised a preliminary objection that the Industrial Court at Mumbai lacked territorial jurisdiction because the respondent was posted and served the order outside Mumbai. The Industrial Court rejected the objection, holding that since the transfer order was issued at Mumbai, the court had jurisdiction. The company challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court framed the issue as whether issuance of a transfer order at Mumbai confers jurisdiction on the Industrial Court at Mumbai when the order is served on an employee posted outside its jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the cause of action arose at Sriganganagar where the respondent was posted and received the order, relying on the principle that the place of service determines jurisdiction. The respondent contended that the issuance of the order at Mumbai, being the place where the decision was made and communicated, gave rise to a cause of action at Mumbai. The High Court analyzed Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, which provides that a complaint may be filed in the Industrial Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the industry is situated or the alleged unfair labour practice is alleged to have occurred. The Court held that the issuance of the transfer order at Mumbai constituted an integral part of the alleged unfair labour practice, and therefore, the Industrial Court at Mumbai had jurisdiction. The Court distinguished cases where the order is merely communicated from a distance, emphasizing that here the order was both made and issued from Mumbai. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order on jurisdiction. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the complaint.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Jurisdiction - Transfer Order - Section 28, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The issue was whether the Industrial Court at Mumbai had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint challenging a transfer order issued at Mumbai but served on the employee posted in Rajasthan. The Court held that the issuance of the transfer order at Mumbai, being the place where the order was made and communicated, confers jurisdiction on the Industrial Court at Mumbai. The Court reasoned that the cause of action arises at the place of issuance, and the employee's place of posting is not determinative. (Paras 1-34) B) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Transfer - Item 9 of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The complaint alleged that the transfer was an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV. The Court did not decide the merits but upheld jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Paras 2-5) C) Civil Procedure - Cause of Action - Place of Issuance - The Court applied the principle that cause of action arises where the order is issued and communicated, not where it is received or where the employee is posted. (Paras 20-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether issuance of a transfer order at Mumbai confers jurisdiction on the Industrial Court at Mumbai to entertain a complaint of unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, when the order is served on the employee posted outside the Industrial Court's territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 4 May 2022, and held that the Industrial Court at Mumbai has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Industrial Court
- Unfair labour practice
- Transfer order
- Issuance of order
- Service of order
- Section 28 MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
