Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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