The Delhi High Court has allowed a writ petition filed by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), setting aside a Labour Court award granting ₹10 lakh compensation with interest to the workman, holding that the Delhi Administration lacked territorial jurisdiction to refer the industrial dispute and that the Labour Court’s award was therefore a nullity in law.
The dispute arose from a reference dated October 5, 1991, made by the Secretary (Labour), Delhi Administration, concerning the alleged illegal termination of the respondent–workman, Rampal. The workman claimed that he was employed as a Peon since December 26, 1985, and that his services were terminated with effect from April 1, 1989, without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management, however, consistently disputed both the employer–employee relationship and the territorial jurisdiction, asserting that the respondent was engaged as a Chowkidar at a housing project in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, under a Housing Project Committee formed by four independent companies, and was never employed in Delhi.
Earlier, by an award dated May 14, 2009, the Labour Court had rejected the objection on territorial jurisdiction but dismissed the claim on other grounds. That award was set aside by the High Court on November 6, 2019, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. Upon remand, the Labour Court passed the impugned award dated July 10, 2023, granting lump-sum compensation of ₹10 lakh to the workman, which was challenged by IOCL in the present writ petition.
While examining the challenge, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri analysed the pleadings and evidence and found that throughout his employment, the respondent was posted and worked only at Noida, that his appointment and termination were oral, and that there was no material to show any nexus with Delhi. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Kalyan Banerjee and V.G. Jadishan v. Indofos Industries Ltd., reiterating that territorial jurisdiction depends on where the cause of action substantially arises, and that the mere location of a head office or subsequent correspondence from Delhi does not confer jurisdiction.
The Court held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction had never been conclusively examined earlier, and once it was established that the workman was employed, worked, and terminated at Noida, no part of the cause of action arose within Delhi. Consequently, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference made by the Delhi Administration.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned award dated July 10, 2023, holding it to be without jurisdiction, and disposed of the writ petition without examining the merits of the termination dispute.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner (IOCL) – Mr. Rajiv Shukla, Ms. Shivani Kapoor, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Ravi Ranjan and Ms. Manisha Brahma, Advocates
For the Respondent (Workman) – Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. L. Gangmei and Ms. Meghna De, Advocates
