Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

By No Stretch of Imagination, It Can Be Held That the Labour Court at Chandigarh Has No Jurisdiction: High Court of Punjab and Haryana Holds Chandigarh Authorities Have Jurisdiction in Labour Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment concerning the jurisdiction of labour disputes, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, ruled that the Chandigarh authorities have jurisdiction over the labour dispute involving the termination of Upinder Kumar Singla by Groz-Beckert Asia Pvt. Limited.

The primary legal issue revolved around whether the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute concerning the termination of the petitioner, who was working in Tirupur, Tamil Nadu, at the time of his termination, despite the decision being made at the company's head office in Chandigarh.

The petitioner, Upinder Kumar Singla, was terminated by Groz-Beckert Asia Pvt. Limited, with the termination order issued from the company's head office in Chandigarh but communicated in Tirupur. The petitioner contended that this termination was in violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Assistant Labour Commissioner initially took up the matter but later suo moto reviewed the decision on jurisdictional grounds, rejecting the demand notice.

The court meticulously analyzed various precedents, including "Nandram vs. M/s Garware Polyster Ltd.", "Bageshwar Maurya vs. Management Naveen Projects P. Ltd.", "Bikash Bhushan Ghosh & Ors vs. M/s Novartis India Limited and Anr", and "Bhola Nath Maurya and others vs. State of Punjab and others". The crux of these judgments underscored that the location of the decision-making process is pivotal in determining the jurisdiction.

Justice Vashisth observed, "By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the Labour Court at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction." The judgment emphasized the role of the head office in Chandigarh in making the termination decision. The court thus set aside the order dated 25.09.2017 by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, holding that the Chandigarh authorities indeed have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute, directing the parties to proceed as per the law.

Date of Decision: 14.02.2024

Upinder Kumar Singla vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Conciliation Officer, U.T., Chandigarh and Ors

 

Latest Legal News