2007 (4) TMI 670 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the termination of service of (1) Shri Bikash Bhusan Ghosh (2) Shri Pradip Kumar Mukherjee and (3) Shri Shyama Charan Mallick is justified? What relief, if any, are they entitled to?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal to make a reference under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Legality of the termination of the appellants' services without a domestic enquiry.
3. Nexus between the orders of transfer and termination of services.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal:
The primary issue was whether the State of West Bengal had the jurisdiction to refer the industrial dispute to the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the State of West Bengal was not the appropriate government to make the reference as the appellants were transferred to other states and did not join their duties there. However, the Supreme Court found that the orders of termination were served upon the appellants in Calcutta, and the termination was due to their non-compliance with the transfer orders, thus establishing a nexus between the dispute and the territory of West Bengal. The Court referred to the precedent set in *Shri Rangavillas Motors (P) Ltd.*, which emphasized the location where the dispute arose and the nexus between the dispute and the territory. The Court concluded that a part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta, making the State of West Bengal the appropriate government.

2. Legality of Termination Without Domestic Enquiry:
The appellants contended that their termination was unauthorized, arbitrary, and illegal as no domestic enquiry was held prior to their termination. The Tribunal initially found the termination orders illegal and directed reinstatement with back wages. The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of whether a conciliation proceeding was pending regarding the transfer orders but focused on the nexus between the transfer and termination. The Court highlighted that the orders of termination were directly linked to the orders of transfer, and thus, the legality of the termination was inherently connected to the jurisdictional issue.

3. Nexus Between Transfer and Termination:
The Court emphasized that the orders of transfer had a direct nexus with the termination of services. The appellants were terminated for not complying with the transfer orders, and the communication of termination orders in Calcutta established a cause of action there. The Court referred to the case of *Om Prakash Srivastava* to explain the concept of "cause of action," which includes every fact necessary to be proved for the plaintiff to succeed. The Court concluded that the nexus between the transfer and termination orders justified the jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had held that the State of West Bengal lacked jurisdiction. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the Letters Patent Appeal on merit. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs. The Court underscored that the communication of the termination orders in Calcutta and the direct link between the transfer and termination established the jurisdiction of the State of West Bengal.