Employee cannot be expected to initiate proceedings at transferred place: Karnataka HC

BENGALURU: Merely because the employer has transferred him to a particular place, a workman cannot be expected to initiate proceedings in the said place, the Karnataka high court has observed in a recent order while granting relief to a dismissed medical representative.


Negating the argument put forward by the management of Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Limited, Justice Suraj Govindaraj has pointed out that if the said contention is put to practice, it would give rise to chaos inasmuch as the petitioner A Vishwanath Shetty could have filed a petition in Udupi, Chennai, Bengaluru or New Delhi, the places where he was offered/ transferred before his dismissal.

"Such a submission, if accepted could also give rise to a situation which could result in exploitation of the workman inasmuch as the employer could at its whims and fancies transfer a workman to any place in the country and contend that it is in the place of transfer that the dispute has to be raised" the judge has added.

"The dispute is not as much as the transfer to a particular location but transfer from a particular location. That apart, in the present case, the dispute is as regards termination of services of the petitioner which termination, in my considered opinion, occurred in Shivamogga since the notice of termination which had been issued from New Delhi would be complete only on receipt thereof by the workman at the address shown in the notice which is Shivamogga", Justice Suraj Govindaraj has further noted, while holding that the Labour court at Mangalore had the jurisdiction to decide the issue on hand.

Background

Petitioner A Vishwanath Shetty was working as a medical representative with the Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Limited. He was stationed at Shivamogga when he was dismissed from service on February 8,1997 .Prior to that his employer had given options either to take transfer to Udupi or Chennai . Later, he was asked to report at Bengaluru depot which was also not adhered to and in that background, he was transferred to New Delhi headquarters As he did not report to,he was terminated from service.

Vishwanath Shetty then moved the Labour court at Mangalore, which is having jurisdiction over Shivamogga.However, Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Limited raised preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the court to hear the case, citing that the applicant has been transferred to New Delhi and as per the terms and conditions, the dispute can only be raised in a court in New Delhi.

On February 17,2011, the Labour court upheld the objection raised by the management and rejected the Industrial Dispute raised by Vishwanath Shetty on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

Challenging the said order, Vishwanath Shetty argued that the last place of work being Shivamogga, the Labour court in Karnataka having territorial jurisdiction over that place ( Mangalore) has to decide the issue and hence he had raised Industrial dispute before the Labour court at Mangalore. According to him, the Labour court at Mangalore failed to take note of the same and rejected his application solely relying upon the agreement of employment which stated that the disputes have to be resolved within the jurisdiction of New Delhi.