Filing of case not necessary at worker's place of transfer: Karnataka HC

BENGALURU: An employer cannot expect an employee to initiate legal proceedings at his or her place of work, just because he or she was transferred to that location, the Karnataka HC recently ruled while granting relief to a medical representative dismissed from work.
Negating the argument put forward by the management of Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said if the said contention is put into practice, it will give rise to a chaotic situation, adding that petitioner A Vishwanath Shetty could have filed his plea in Udupi, Chennai, Bengaluru or Delhi -- places he was ordered to be transferred to before his dismissal.
HC: If employer's argument is accepted, can spark chaos
The dispute is not regarding transfer to, but from a particular location, the judge said.
Clarifying his order, the judge further said that if the employer's argument is to be accepted then it can trigger chaos, wherein, "an employer can, at his or her whim and fancy, transfer a worker to any place in the country and contend that it is at that place of transfer that a legal dispute has to be raised".
Justice Govindaraj added that in this case, the labour court in Mangaluru had the authority to decide on the complaint.
"The termination of service had occurred in Shivamogga, since the notice of termination, issued in New Delhi, would have been complete only upon its receipt by the workman in Shivamogga," Justice Govindaraj explained.
Petitioner A Vishwanath Shetty was medical representative with Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals. He was posted in Shivamogga. He had refused to be transferred to Udupi, Chennai and Bengaluru, following which he was told to report at the company's headquarters in New Delhi. However, when he failed to show up for work in New Delhi as well, he was terminated from service on February 8, 1997.
Shetty then approached the labour court in Mangaluru to contest his dismissal, but Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the court in Mangaluru to hear the case, arguing that since the applicant had been transferred to New Delhi, the case should be heard in a court in New Delhi.
On February 17, 2011, the labour court upheld the objection raised by Shetty's employer and rejected the complaint raised by Shetty.
Challenging the order, Shetty argued that since his last place of work was Shivamogga, the labour court in Karnataka, with territorial jurisdiction over that place (Mangaluru), should hear the case.