/2022 INSC 0290/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.        OF 2022
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 12511 OF 2016)
V G Jagdishan           ..Appellant (S)
Versus
M/s. Indofos Industries Limited    ..Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment
and   order   dated   06.07.2015   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Delhi at New Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 412/2015,
by   which   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   said   appeal
preferred by the appellant herein – workman and it is held
that the Labour Court at Delhi would have no jurisdiction
to   try   the   case   and   that   the   Labour   Court   at   Ghaziabad
1

would   have   jurisdiction   to   try   the   complaint/case,   the
workman has preferred the present appeal. 
3. The   dispute   in   the   present   appeal   is   in   a   very   narrow
compass. The appellant herein – workman was working as
a driver at Ghaziabad. He was employed at Ghaziabad and
was   also   working   at   Ghaziabad.   His   services   were
terminated   at   Ghaziabad.   Subsequent   to   his   termination,
the   workman   shifted   to   Delhi.   He   sent   a   demand   notice
challenging   his   termination   to   the   head   office   at   Delhi.
Thereafter,   he   filed   a   claim   before   the   Conciliation   Officer
at Delhi. Before the Labour Court, Delhi, the Management
–   respondent   herein   raised   the   objection   about
maintainability of proceedings at Delhi. It was also pointed
out that the workman had already raised the same dispute
before   the   Deputy   Labour   Commissioner,   Ghaziabad.   The
Labour   Commissioner,   Delhi   proceeded   further   with   the
complaint/conciliation   proceedings.   The   dispute   was
referred   to   the   Labour   Court,   Delhi.   Before   the   Labour
Court,   respondent   –   management   raised   a   preliminary
objection   that   the   Labour   Court,   Delhi   had   no   territorial
2

jurisdiction   since   the   workman   was   appointed   at
Ghaziabad; he was working in the factory of management –
respondent herein at Ghaziabad and his services were also
retrenched  at   Ghaziabad.  It  was  the  case on  behalf  of  the
workman   that   as   the   demand   notice   was   served   at   Head
Office  at   Delhi,   it   can   be   said   that   the   dispute  has   arisen
giving   rise   to   substantial   cause   of   action   at   Delhi.
Therefore,   it   was   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   workman   that
the Labour Court at Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to try
the case.        
3.1 The   Labour   Court   vide   award   dated   18.04.2006   held   the
preliminary   issue   in   favour   of   the   management   and   held
that   the   Labour   Court   at   Delhi   has   no   territorial
jurisdiction   to   decide   the   case/complaint/reference.   The
Labour   Court   held   that   merely   because   the   Corporate
Office   of   the   management   was   at   Delhi   the   same   will   not
vest   the   Labour   Court,   Delhi   with   territorial   jurisdiction.
The   Labour   Court   held   that   as   the   cause   of   action   has
arisen at Ghaziabad, the Court at Ghaziabad alone had the
jurisdiction to try the case. 
3

  
3.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   award/order
passed   by   the   Labour   Court   holding   that   the   Labour
Court, Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction to  try  the case,
the workman preferred the writ petition before the learned
Single Judge  of the  High Court. The  learned  Single Judge
dismissed   the   said   writ   petition   vide   order   dated
09.04.2015.   The   Letters   Patent   Appeal   (LPA)   against   the
order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   has   been
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the
impugned   judgment   and   order.   Hence,   the   workman   has
preferred the present appeal.    
4. Ms.   V.   Mohana,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   herein   –   workman   has   vehemently
submitted   that   in   the   present   case   it   cannot   be   said   that
there   is   a   total   lack   of   jurisdiction   in   the   Labour   Court,
Delhi.   It   is   submitted   that   as   the   Head   Office,   where   the
demand   notice   was   sent   was   at   Delhi   and   the   demand
notice   was   served   from   Delhi   where   the   workman   was
staying   after   the   termination,   it   can   be   said   that   a   part
cause   of   action   has   arisen   in   Delhi.   It   is   submitted   that
4

when a part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi, the
Court at Delhi would have territorial jurisdiction. Reliance
is   placed   on   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in   the   cases   of
Nandram   Vs.   Garware   Polyster   Limited;   (2016)   6   SCC
290, Bikash Bhushan Ghosh and Ors. Vs. Novartis India
Ltd.   and   Anr;   (2007)   5   SCC   591   and   Singareni
Collieries   Co.   Ltd.   Vs.   Ande   Lingaiah   and   Anr;   (2000)
10 SCC 294 .     
4.1 It   is   further   submitted   by   Ms.   V.   Mohana,   learned   Senior
Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   in   the
present   case,   the   Labour   Court   had   decided   the
preliminary   issue   and   held   that   the   Labour   Court,   Delhi
has   no   territorial   jurisdiction   to   decide   the   case.     It   is
submitted   that   Labour   Court   ought   to   have   given   its
decision   on   all   issues.     Reliance   is   placed   upon   the
decision of this Court in the case of   D.P. Maheshwari Vs.
Delhi Administration and Ors.; (1983) 4 SCC 293.    It is
submitted that as held by this honourable Court, tribunals
should   dispose   of   all   the   issues,   whether   preliminary   or
otherwise, at the same time.
5

4.2 Making   the   above   submissions   and   relying   upon   above
decisions of this Court, it is prayed to quash and set aside
the   order(s)   passed   by   the   Labour   Court,   learned   Single
Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and direct
the Labour Court, Delhi to decide and dispose of the case
at the earliest.  
5. As   per   the   office   report,   service   is   not   complete   on   sole
respondent   No.   1   and   as   per   the   post   tracking   report,
notice   has   not   been   delivered   to   respondent   No.   1   with
postal   remarks   as   “Addressee   left   without   instructions”.
However, the present Special Leave Petition (SLP) is of the
year   2016   and   for   the   reasons   hereinbelow,   we   see   no
reasons   to   interfere   with   the   order   passed   by   the   High
Court. We proceed further with the SLP ex­parte so far as
sole respondent No. 1 is concerned.      
6. The   question   which   is   posed   for   the   consideration   of   this
Court   is,   whether,   the   Labour   Court,   Delhi   would   have
territorial   jurisdiction   to   decide   the   case   or   the   Labour
6

Court,   Ghaziabad   would   have   territorial   jurisdiction   to
decide the case.  
6.1 From the findings recorded by the Labour Court, Delhi and
the   learned   Single   Judge   and   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High   Court,   it   is   not   much   in   dispute   that   the   workman
was   employed   as   a   driver   at   Ghaziabad   office.   He   was
working at the Ghaziabad. His services were retrenched at
Ghaziabad.   All   throughout   during   the   employment,   the
workman stayed and worked at Ghaziabad. Only after the
retrenchment/termination   the   workman   shifted   to   Delhi
from   where   he   served   a   demand   notice   at   Head   Office   of
the   Management   situated   at   Delhi.   Merely   because   the
workman   after   termination/retrenchment   shifted   to   Delhi
and sent a demand notice from Delhi and the Head Office
of   the   Management   was  at   Delhi,   it  cannot   be   said  that   a
part   cause   of   action   has   arisen   at   Delhi.   Considering   the
facts   that   the   workman   was   employed   at   Ghaziabad;   was
working at Ghaziabad and his services were terminated at
Ghaziabad,   the   facts   being   undisputed,   only   the
Ghaziabad   Court   would   have   territorial   jurisdiction   to
7

decide the case. As such the issue involved in the present
case is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this
Court in the case of   Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. Vs.
Kalyan   Banerjee;   (2008)   3   SCC   456 .   In   the   case   of
Eastern   Coalfields   Ltd.   (supra)   the   workman   was
employed   in   Mugma   area   in   the   district   of   Dhanbad,
Jharkhand.   His   services   were   terminated   at   Mugma.
However,   the   workman   filed   a   writ   petition   before   the
Calcutta High Court. On a preliminary objection taken the
Calcutta   High   Court   held   that   since   the   workman   was
serving  at  Mugma area under  the General Manager  of the
area   which   is   the   State   of   Jharkhand,   the   Calcutta   High
Court had no jurisdiction. Affirming the aforesaid decision,
this   Court   held   that   the   entire   cause   of   action   arose   in
Mugma   area   within   the   State   of   Jharkhand   and   only
because the head office of the company was situated in the
State of West Bengal, the same by itself will not confer any
jurisdiction   upon   the   Calcutta   High   Court   particularly
when   the   head   office   had   nothing   to   do   with   the   order   of
punishment   passed   against   the   workman.   In   the   present
8

case   also,   the   workman   was   employed   at   Ghaziabad;   he
was   working   at   Ghaziabad   and   his   services   were   also
terminated at Ghaziabad by the office at Ghaziabad where
he was employed. 
6.2 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
Court in the case of   Singareni Collieries   Co. Ltd.   (supra)
is   concerned,   apart   from   the   fact   that   the   same   is   not
applicable to the facts of the case on hand, it is required to
be   noted   that   the   order   passed   by   this   Court   in   the   said
case   was   a   consent   order   and   the   order   was   passed   in
exercise   of   power   under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution   of
India and the question of law was left open. Therefore, no
reliance can have been placed on the said decision. 
6.3 Now,   as   far   as   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Bikash Bhushan Ghosh  (supra) is concerned, on facts, the
said decision also is not applicable to the facts of the case
on   hand.   That   was   a   case   where   it   was   specifically   found
that the part cause of action had arisen at both places. In
9

the   present   case   as   observed,   it   cannot   be   said   that   any
part cause of action has arisen at Delhi. 
6.4 Reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case
of   Nandram   (supra)   is   also   of   no   assistance   to   the
appellant.   Again,   on   facts,   the   said   decision   is   not
applicable to the facts of the case on hand. That was also a
case   where   it   was   found   that   part   cause   of   action   had
arisen   in   both   the   places,   namely,   Pondicherry   and
Aurangabad.   Therefore,   it   was   found   on   facts   that   both,
the Labour Courts at Pondicherry and Aurangabad had the
jurisdiction   to   deal   with   the   matter   and   therefore,   the
Labour   Court   at   Aurangabad   was   well   within   its
jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
6.5 In   the   case   of   D.P.   Maheshwari   (supra)   is   pressed   into
service by  learned Senior  Advocate  appearing  on  behalf  of
the appellant in support of the submission that the Labour
Court   ought   not   to   have   given   the   decision   only   on
preliminary   issue   and   ought   to   have   disposed   of   all   the
issues, whether preliminary or otherwise at the same time.
10

On facts the said decision is not applicable to the facts of
the   case   on   hand.   In   the   aforesaid   decision   no   absolute
proposition   of   law   was   laid   down   by   this   Court   that   even
the   issue   touching   the   jurisdiction   of   the   court   cannot   be
decided by the court as a preliminary  issue and the court
has   to   dispose   of   all   the   issues,   whether   preliminary   or
otherwise,   at   the   same   time.   When   the   issue   touches   the
question   of   territorial   jurisdiction,   as   far   as   possible   the
same   shall   have   to   be   decided   first   as   preliminary   issue.
Therefore,   in   the   present   case,   the   Labour   Court   did   not
commit any error in deciding the issue with respect to the
territorial   jurisdiction   as   a   preliminary   issue   in   the   first
instance.          
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed
and   is   accordingly   dismissed.   In   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case,   there   shall   be   no   order   as   to
costs. 
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
11

…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
April 19, 2022.
12