addressed in detail on several issues, we do not
think it necessary to go into all those aspects
mainly because in our view they are only academic.
In the background of the factual matrix, the
undisputed position is that the appellant was
employed by the Company in Aurangabad, he was only
transferred to Pondicherry, the decision to close
down the unit at Pondicherry was taken by the Company
at Aurangabad and consequent upon that decision only
the appellant was terminated. Therefore, it cannot
be said that there is no cause of action at all in
Aurangabad. The decision to terminate the appellant
having been taken at Aurangabad necessarily part of
the cause of action has arisen at Aurangabad. We
have no quarrel that Labour Court, Pondicherry is
within its jurisdiction to consider the case of the
appellant, since he has been terminated while he was
working at Pondicherry. But that does not mean that
Labour Court in Aurangabad within whose jurisdiction
the Management is situated and where the Management
has taken the decision to close down the unit at
Pondicherry and pursuant to which the appellant was
terminated from service also does not have the
jurisdiction. In the facts of this case both the
Labour Courts have the jurisdiction to deal with the
matter. Hence, the Labour Court at Aurangabad is
well within its jurisdiction to consider the
complaint filed by the appellant.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP ( C) No. 33917 of 2011)
NANDRAM APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S GARWARE POLYSTER LTD. RESPONDENT
Dated;FEBRUARY 16, 2016
Citation:(2016) 6 SCC290
