Full Text
Date of Decision: 24th May, 2011.
SH.PULENDER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Mann, Advocate.
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may No be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner workman impugns the award dated 6th May, 2009 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference:- “Whether Sh. Pulender S/o Sh. Hari Lal is absenting from his duties unauthorizedly or his services have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, if so, to what sum of money as monetary 2011:DHC:2927 relief along with other consequential benefits in terms of existing Laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?” holding that the Industrial Adjudicator has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said industrial dispute.
2. Notice of the petition was issued.
3. The matter was listed last on 10th May, 2011 when the counsel for the respondent employer sought time to file counter affidavit. Attention of the counsel for the respondent employer was however invited to Raj Kumar Jaiswal v. Rangi International Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (113) DRJ 620 and to Mahipal Singh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III (170) 2010 DLT 130 laying down that the Industrial Adjudicator has no jurisdiction to decide the reference on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction unless the question of territorial jurisdiction is also referred to the Industrial Adjudicator. It was also held in the said judgment that the existence of the Head Office of the employer at Delhi would also show that no prejudice would be caused to the employer by the matter being entertained at Delhi.
4. The counsel for the respondent employer had sought time to consider.
5. The counsel for the respondent employer has not been able to controvert the aforesaid position in law. It is even otherwise not in dispute that the Head Office of the respondent employer is at Delhi and the petitioner workman was appointed at Delhi and was working at Delhi and only thereafter transferred to Noida, Ghaziabad, U.P.
6. Accordingly, the award under challenge cannot be sustained and is quashed/set aside and the matter remanded to the Industrial Adjudicator for decision afresh in accordance with law. The parties to appear before the Industrial Adjudicator on 29th July, 2011. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 24, 2011 bs..