Supreme Court has, in Nandram vs. M/s Garware Polyster Ltd., held that a complaint against termination of an employee of a company is not only maintainable in a Labour court having jurisdiction of the place where the employee was working, when the termination was ordered, but also the Labour court having jurisdiction of the place where the decision to terminate the employee was taken by the management of Company.
In this case, the employee who was initially employed by the company in Aurangabad was later transferred to the company plant in Pondicherry where he was given termination order. He complained before the Labour court which held the complaint as maintainable. But the Industrial Tribunal on revision and later the High Court held that the Labour court at Aurangabad has no jurisdiction. The employee then approached the Apex Court.
In a very short judgment, the bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman observed “The undisputed position is that the appellant was employed by the Company in Aurangabad, he was only transferred to Pondicherry, the decision to close down the unit at Pondicherry was taken by the Company at Aurangabad and consequent upon that decision only the appellant was terminated. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no cause of action at all in Aurangabad. The decision to terminate the appellant having been taken at Aurangabad necessarily part of the cause of action has arisen at Aurangabad. We have no quarrel that Labour Court, Pondicherry is within its jurisdiction to consider the case of the appellant, since he has been terminated while he was working at Pondicherry. But that does not mean that Labour Court in Aurangabad within whose jurisdiction the Management is situated and where the Management has taken the decision to close down the unit at Pondicherry and pursuant to which the appellant was terminated from service also does not have the jurisdiction. In the facts of this case both the Labour Courts have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.”
Read the Judgment here.