Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Anil Murlidharan, was employed by M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited as a Eutectician from 26 July 1995. He was initially posted at Vapi, Gujarat, and later transferred to Silchar, Assam, on 6 June 2003. His services were terminated on 7 October 2005 while he was working at Silchar. The petitioner challenged the termination by filing a complaint of unfair labour practice under Section 28 read with items 1(a), (b), (d), (f), (g), and (i) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Labour Court at Mumbai. The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court at Mumbai, contending that the cause of action arose in Silchar, Assam, and that the court had no jurisdiction. The Labour Court upheld the objection and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner then filed a revision application before the Industrial Court, Mumbai, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court at Mumbai had jurisdiction because the employer's registered office was in Mumbai, the contract of employment contained a clause (Clause 14) limiting jurisdiction to courts in Greater Bombay, and the termination order was issued from Mumbai. The respondent countered that the termination was effected at Silchar, the petitioner was working there, and no part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai. The High Court analyzed the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act, particularly Sections 59 and 60, and held that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) regarding place of suing is not applicable to proceedings under the Act. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is determined by the place where the cause of action arises. Since the petitioner was terminated while working in Silchar, Assam, and the entire cause of action arose there, the Labour Court at Mumbai had no territorial jurisdiction. The court also noted that Clause 14 of the employment contract, which limited jurisdiction to Bombay courts, could not confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court at Mumbai because the contract was between the parties and did not bind the court, and the cause of action for unfair labour practice is distinct from a breach of contract. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Cause of Action - The Labour Court at Mumbai lacks jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of unfair labour practice under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) when the termination of employment occurred at Silchar, Assam, and the employee was working there at the time of termination. The mere fact that the employer's registered office is in Mumbai or that the contract contains a clause conferring jurisdiction on Bombay courts does not confer jurisdiction on the Labour Court at Mumbai, as the cause of action arose wholly in Silchar. (Paras 6-28) B) Industrial Law - Contractual Ouster of Jurisdiction - Clause 14 of Employment Contract - A clause in an employment contract limiting jurisdiction to courts in Greater Bombay cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the MRTU & PULP Act, as the Act creates a special remedy and the cause of action for unfair labour practice is distinct from a breach of contract. However, even if such clause is ignored, the Labour Court at Mumbai still lacks jurisdiction because no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits. (Paras 14-28) C) Industrial Law - MRTU & PULP Act - Sections 59 and 60 - The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) regarding place of suing are not applicable to proceedings under the MRTU & PULP Act, as Section 59 of the Act makes the CPC applicable only to the extent of procedure, not jurisdiction. Section 60 of the Act provides that the Industrial and Labour Courts shall have jurisdiction to try offences under the Act, but does not confer territorial jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court is determined by the place where the cause of action arises. (Paras 19-28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court at Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of unfair labour practice filed by the petitioner, given that the termination occurred at Silchar, Assam, and the contract of employment contained a clause limiting jurisdiction to courts in Greater Bombay.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The court held that the Labour Court at Mumbai lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the entire cause of action arose in Silchar, Assam.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Cause of action
- Industrial dispute
- Contractual ouster of jurisdiction
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Sections 28
- 59
- 60
