One Sri Nandram, employee of Garware Polyester Limited was appointed as Boiler Attendant in the year 1983 in Aurangabad. He was promoted as Junior Supervisor in 1987 and in 1995 as Senior Supervisor and continued in Aurangabad. In the year 2000, Sri Nandram was transferred to Silvasa in Gujarat. In 2001, he was transferred from Silvasa, Gujarat to Pondicherry.
The establishment at Pondicherry was closed in 2005 and therefore the services of Sri Nandram was terminated on 12.04.2005 at Pondicherry.
Aggrieved by the termination, Sri Nandram filed a dispute before the Labour Court at Aurangabad where he was originally appointed in 1983. Despite the objection taken by the Management that the Labour Court in Aurangabad lacked jurisdiction, it was decided in favour of Sri Nandram.
Being aggrieved, the Company took up the matter before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad which set aside the Order passed by the Labour Court and dismissed the dispute raised by Sri Nandram reserving liberty to approach the appropriate Court at Pondicherry where he was working and later terminated due to closure.
The Employee moved the High Court of Bombay, which by judgment dated 07.06.2011 affirmed the view taken by the Industrial Court that the Employee should raise a dispute at Pondicherry where was working and later terminated due to closure.
The Employee approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court after hearing the parties, examined the factual matrix of the case and noted that the decision to close down the Pondicherry Unit was taken by the Head Office at Aurangabad, consequent upon which the services of Sri Nandram was terminated. Therefore, the Apex Court held that it is for the Employee to choose where he could challenge the termination either at Pondicherry or at Aurangabad. Therefore, the Apex Court held that both the Courts at Pondicherry as well as at Aurangabad will have jurisdiction and it is the Employee's choice to approach the Labour Court either at Pondicherry or Aurangabad. Thus, the case was remanded for adjudication on merits to Aurangabad Labour Court.
It is important to note here that all these days, the Courts including the Apex Court have held that where the Employee was last working would be the place to raise dispute challenging termination. However, in this case, since the termination was effected by the Head Office at Aurangabad, the Apex Court has extended the choice to the employee to challenge the termination either at Aurangabad or at Pondicherry. Thus, the facts of each case make an individual case and law is laid down on the said basis. The Judgment is reported in 2016 ILR 337 in the case of Sri Nandram Vs. Garware PolyesterLimited.
The judgment is rendered by Hon'ble Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon'ble Justice Sri Rohinton Fali Nariman.
NOTE:
The readers may please note that Hon'ble Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman is the son of Senior-most Advocate Sri Fali S Nariman who is appearing for the State of Karnataka in Cauvery dispute. Further, Mr. Rohinton Fali Nariman is the 6 Senior Advocate, who is directly appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court. Usually and normally, the Supreme Court Judges are appointed from among the Judges of various High Courts. Our Sri. Santhosh Hegde, earlier Lokayuktha was also one such Senior Advocate who was directly appointed to the Supreme Court of India.
-Shared by Haridas P A, Manager HR & Admin, AB Mauri India Pvt Ltd
