The Court affirms that the Government of NCT of Delhi is not the "appropriate Government" for referring the industrial dispute, emphasizing the importance of situs of employment and cause of action location.
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Labour Court-XIX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, regarding territorial jurisdiction in the case of Rajeshwar Dayal Aggarwal v. M/s Enicar Machine (India). The judgment, delivered by Ms. Shail Jain, J., on May 11, 2026, reinforced the principle that the appropriate Government for referring industrial disputes is determined by the situs of employment and the place where the cause of action substantially arose.
The petitioner, Rajeshwar Dayal Aggarwal, had challenged the Labour Court's award dated July 3, 2015, which declared that the Government of NCT of Delhi was not the competent authority to refer his dispute for adjudication. The Labour Court found that the petitioner was employed in Faridabad, Haryana, at the time of his alleged termination, and therefore, the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the State of Haryana.
Aggarwal, who worked as a Clerk/Sale Purchase Assistant, claimed that he was wrongfully terminated from his position at M/s Enicar Machine (India) without any written order or enquiry. He sought reinstatement and recovery of dues, initiating proceedings before the Labour Court based on a reference from the Government of NCT of Delhi.
However, the Labour Court concluded that the reference was invalid as the situs of employment and termination were outside Delhi's jurisdiction. The Delhi High Court supported this view, highlighting that the territorial jurisdiction in industrial disputes is primarily guided by the location where the employment and alleged wrongful termination occurred.
Aggarwal's counsel argued that the management had substantial business ties with Delhi, citing old business documents to support the claim. Nevertheless, the Court emphasized the precedence of the situs of employment over historical business operations for determining jurisdiction.
The judgment also underscored that jurisdiction issues must be addressed before the merits of the case, as they concern the foundational authority of the adjudicatory forum. The Court found no perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in the Labour Court's award, thereby dismissing the writ petition.
Despite the dismissal, the High Court clarified that Aggarwal could pursue remedies available under law before the appropriate forum in Haryana, should he choose to do so.
Bottom line:-
Territorial jurisdiction in Industrial Disputes - Determinative factors for "appropriate Government" under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 include the situs of employment and place where the industrial dispute substantially arose, not merely the location of head office or earlier operation of the management.
Statutory provision(s): Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Section 2(a), Section 17(2); Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Rajeshwar Dayal Aggarwal v. M/s Enicar Machine (India), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2895894
