The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 17490 of 2017 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Bijay Kumar Mishra …..… Petitioner --------------------- The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur & another …..… Opp. Parties -Versus- For Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar Pani, Advocate For Opp.Parties : Mr. Prasanta Kumar Jena, Advocate for O.P.No.2 ------------------ P R E S E N T:
Legal Reasoning
HE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO A N D Date of hearing: 13.07.2023 Date of judgment: 13.07.2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biswanath Rath, J The writ petition involve a challenge to the impugned order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No. 9 of 2016. 2. The background of the case appears to be the petitioner having typing skill was appointed by opposite party-Management on 1.4.1998 under the terms and conditions Annexure-1. While the petitioner was continuing as typist the management considering his 2 expertise promoted the petitioner to the post of Accounts Assistant with effect from 1.4.2008 and posted in its operation unit at Joda. Copy of order of promotion appears to be dated 31.3.2008 vide Annexue-2. While working as such, the petitioner got a communication vide Annexure-3 dated 21.5.2015 transferring the petitioner from Joda branch to its Porbandar branch in Administrative Assistant with effect from Ist June, 2015. On the petitioner resisting such transfer, in a development at the instance of the management, proceeding was initiated against the petitioner based on a charge-sheet being framed, petitioner was subjected to termination. Alleging illegal termination, petitioner brought a dispute before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur under the provisions of section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 questioning illegal termination and requesting therein for a direction for re-instatement in service with full back wages. Workman- petitioner in its statement of claim while reiterating the aforesaid developments, submitted his objection to the refusal of engagement of the termination order involve herein. There is further disclosure by the workman that even though such resistance was brought before the District Labour Officer and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, none of them gave any outcome compelling workman to take shelter of the Labour Court. First party management on its appearance in the industrial adjudication I.D. Case No. 9 of 2016 while resisting the claim of the petitioner, contended that there is good ground in terminating the services of the petitioner and that too after entering into disciplinary proceeding providing opportunity to the petitioner-Management also took stand petitioner not joining the transferred place, amounted to misconduct and violation of conditions in the conditions of service. The management also 3 challenged entertainability of the dispute on the premises of jurisdiction based on the transfer order particularly keeping in view that the petitioner since was transferred to Porbandar and therefore, contended the cause of action lie within Maharashtra and not Odisha. 3. Parties also advanced their evidence in the industrial adjudication. Considering the contentions, plea of the parties and on examination of evidence vide impugned award (Annexue-12), Labour Court, Sambalpur has come to dismiss Section 2(A)2 on the ground of jurisdiction along. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court on reiteration of the factual narration and developments taking place only the petitioner was thrown out of service. Taking this Court to the developments through Annexure-2 as well as Annexure-3, contended that promotion order as well as transfer order being issued at Joda in the State of Odisha coming within jurisdiction of Labour Court, Sambalpur, petitioner resisting such transfer cause of action if any, directly related to cause of action taking place at Joda branch office and within the clear jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Sambalpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims the impugned order (Annexure-12) should be interfered and set aside and as an outcome, the matter should be remitted back to the Labour Court, Sambalpur for adjudication of the dispute therein. Shri Jena, learned counsel appearing for the management, however, not disputing on the issue of original appointment order along with orders at Annexures-3 and 4 being issued from Joda office and petitioner is resisting while continuing in service at Joda, however, taking this Court, plea of management through the written statement in the forum below, taking this court to the conditions of 4 service emanated through Annexure-2 contended though the petitioner consenting to the jurisdiction of Maharashtra contended that there is right decision of the industrial adjudicator through Annexure-3 issued Joda office. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court while finding petitioner’s appointment was in the operational unit of Joda and the management placed at Joda, his promotion also made in the office of Joda. Even though this Court find the head office management establishment situates at Mumbai, Maharashtra but the operational jurisdiction of the petitioner remain in the office of Joda. There has been several correspondence being issued from the office of Joda at different point of time. Petitioner also submitted his resistance in the Joda office. Further the objection raised by the learned counsel for the management through provision of clause 17 of Annexure-2 which is quoted herein below : 17. Breach of contract and jurisdiction i.Any act on your part which may adversely affect the Company’s interests may lead to the immediate termination of your services and the company reserves the right to proceed against you under the law of the land. ii.In the event that any provision herein shall be determined to be void or unenforceable in whole or in partly by reason of the area, duration or type or scope of matter covered by the said provision then the said provision shall be given effect to in the reduced form as may be decided by any court of competent jurisdiction. iii.Your employment contract and all terms are governed from the Corporate Office of the Company at Mumbai. Therefore, in the event of any dispute/differences relating to this appointment or termination thereof, the jurisdiction will be of the courts in Mumbai.” 5 There is, however, no dispute that petitioner remaining absent invited a disciplinary proceeding, he was charge-sheeted here at Joda, enquiry officer also belonged to Odisha, the proceeding also concluded in termination of service of the petitioner in the State of Odisha. 5. Keeping in view the rival contentions, this Court find the law on the issue of jurisdiction has been clear by observing there cannot be enforcing jurisdiction on a party. Further for the clear disclosure herein above, the right from employment till transfer, involving petitioner are taking place in the Joda office. 6. In the circumstances, this Court finds it is wrong to observe that there is absolutely no cause of action in the State of Odisha. Law is very well settled observing even a part of cause of action also can bring the jurisdiction to a Court or authority in this State. To add to it this Court also finds since this a labour dispute under the provisions of the I.D. Act, section 2(A)2 the appropriate Government is also state of Odisha. In the above background this Court find there has been wrong appreciation of the issue involving jurisdiction with the Labour Court involve herein. This Court while declaring finding and observation in taking up the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Sambalpur interfering in the award Annexure-12 in I.D. Case No. 9 of 2016 setting aside the same as there is necessity for lawful adjudication of the dispute involve herein remits the matter back to the learned Labour Court, Sambalpur for giving a lawful disposal to the dispute at hand. This Court further direct both the parties to appear before the Labour Court, Sambalpur along with judgment of this Court on 20.07.2023 to take further 6 instruction on the further proceeding involving the dispute involve herein. The writ petition succeeds but in the circumstances, there
Decision
is no order as to costs. ……………………… Biswanath Rath, J. M.S.Sahoo, J. I agree. …………………… M.S.Sahoo, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 13th July, 2023/dutta