The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the workman challenged a labour court award whereby it was held that the Government of NCT of Delhi was not the “appropriate Government” for making the reference and consequently the claim of the workman was held to be not maintainable.

A Ld. Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held –

“Courts have consistently held that the jurisdiction of a Labour Court to adjudicate an industrial dispute must have a direct and substantial nexus with the territory of the Government making the reference. The expression “appropriate Government” as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act contemplates the Government having jurisdiction over the industry or establishment in relation to which the dispute substantially arises. It is in this context that the situs of employment assumes significance.”

and further held –

“32. The legal position governing the present controversy is now fairly well settled. In disputes arising out of termination of service, it is ordinarily the place where the workman was lastly employed and where the alleged termination took effect that constitutes the determinative factor for deciding territorial jurisdiction. The principle is founded upon the rationale that the industrial dispute substantially crystallises at the place where the employment subsisted and where the adverse employment action operated against the workman.”

The Delhi High Court observed that once the workman himself admitted that he was discharging duties at Faridabad, Haryana on the date of alleged termination, the labour court cannot be faulted for holding that the industrial dispute substantially arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Haryana and held –

“40. An admission made in pleadings is a judicial admission of the highest order. It is well settled that a party is bound by its pleadings and ordinarily cannot be permitted to travel beyond the same in an attempt to improve or alter the nature of their case.”

The Ld. Single Judge held that the impugned award did not suffer from perversity or patent illegality or jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference under Article 226, the impugned award was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed. It was however clarified that dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the workman from availing remedies available in law before the appropriate forum and the appropriate Government having jurisdiction, and if not otherwise barred by law.