This court dismissed a writ appeal against the affirmation of a labour court award. It held the labour court lacked jurisdiction due to a contractual clause conferring jurisdiction to Mumbai, noting the jurisdiction issue became academic since the termination was valid under the contract terms.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1652 OF 2018 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI T RAJARAM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI B.S.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DINESH S K, ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07/03/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.42044/2014 AND REINSTATE THE APPELLANT WITH ALL FULL BACK WAGES AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No. 1652 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This is an intra court appeal arising out of order dated 07.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed and the award dated 14.02.2014 passed by the labour court has been affirmed.
The parties had entered into a contract dated 18.05.2006. Clause 4 of the aforesaid contract provides that services of the appellant could be terminated by the respondent either by giving two months notice or by paying two months salary in lieu thereof. In accordance with Clause 4 of the aforesaid contract, by an order dated 04.03.2011 the services of the appellant were terminated by giving her two months salary.
WA No. 1652 of 2018
the parties, the Court at Mumbai shall have jurisdiction, accordingly, the labour court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. The reference was answered in the negative.
WA No. 1652 of 2018
Bombay vs M/s. Prasad Trading Company reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1514.
sides.
WA No. 1652 of 2018
jurisdiction on a particular court by consent. (See; Hakam Singh v. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd., (1971) 3 SCR 314).
9. In the instant case, the principle place of business of respondent is Mumbai and the appellant was employed at Bengaluru. Thus, the Courts at Mumbai as well as Bengaluru had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute, however, under clause 18 of the contract of appointment dated 18.05.2006, the parties agreed to confer the jurisdiction on the Court at Mumbai. Therefore, the labour court at Bengaluru had no jurisdiction to deal with the reference.
WA No. 1652 of 2018
order of termination is not a stigmatic order and has been passed in terms of Clause 4 of the contract of appointment by giving two months salary to the appellant. The order of termination therefore does not suffer from any infirmity.
any merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
BRN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the labour court had jurisdiction to entertain the reference when the contract conferred jurisdiction on the Court at Mumbai.
Whether the order of termination was illegal and unsustainable for failing first to conduct an inquiry.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs Winnifred Lewis
M/s S G S India Private Limited
Alok Aradhe
Anant Ramanath Hegde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
