Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment: Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute

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

 

Similar News