Summary
A driver employed, working and terminated at Ghaziabad sought to litigate in Delhi after moving there and sending a demand notice to the employer’s Delhi head office. The Court held that these later circumstances did not create part of the cause of action in Delhi. Ghaziabad alone had territorial jurisdiction on the undisputed facts. The Labour Court could decide that jurisdictional question first as a preliminary issue. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether a later move and demand notice to the Delhi head office created territorial jurisdiction there.
- Whether territorial jurisdiction could properly be decided as a preliminary issue.
Held
- All material employment and termination events occurred at Ghaziabad. The employee’s subsequent residence in Delhi and service of a demand notice on the Delhi head office did not create a Delhi cause of action on these facts. (¶ 6-6.1)
- Decisions recognising jurisdiction at two places depended on a cause of action arising in both; they did not assist where none arose in Delhi. The cited consent order under Article 142 had left the legal question open and supplied no contrary rule. (¶ 6.2-6.4)
- D.P. Maheshwari did not impose an absolute requirement to decide every issue together even where territorial jurisdiction was in question. Such a jurisdictional issue should, as far as possible, be resolved first, and the Labour Court committed no error in doing so here. (¶ 6.5)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The finding that the Delhi Labour Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the dispute belonged before the Ghaziabad court was upheld. No order as to costs.