Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property 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

 

Latest Legal News