UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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