Summary: The Bombay High Court decided that labor courts in Maharashtra can handle complaints about unfair treatment at work, even if the employee works outside the state, as long as the decisions affecting them were made in Maharashtra.
The case involved several petitions and appeals about whether labor courts in Maharashtra can hear complaints about unfair treatment at work when the employees are working outside the state. The main question was whether the location of the employee or the place where decisions were made should determine which court can hear the case.
Debate on Where to Hear the Case
The issue was whether the employee's location or the place where the decision to transfer or fire them was made should determine which labor court can hear the case under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU Act).
Arguments from Both Sides
Nicholas Employees Union's Argument: The union argued that since decisions about their jobs were made in Maharashtra, the local courts should be able to hear the case. They mentioned cases like Nandram vs. Garware Polyester Limited where the Supreme Court said that decisions made at the company's main office in Maharashtra were enough to allow the case to be heard there.
Piramal Healthcare Ltd.'s Argument: The company argued that which court should hear the case should depend on where the employee was when the unfair treatment happened, mentioning previous cases like GlaxoSmithKline vs. Abhay Raj Jain.
Changing Previous Decisions
The court decided that the earlier decision in GlaxoSmithKline was indirectly changed by the Supreme Court's decision in Nandram. The court stressed that decisions made at the company’s main office in Maharashtra were an important part of the case, allowing Maharashtra's labor courts to handle it.
"The decision to terminate the appellant having been taken at Aurangabad necessarily part of the cause of action has arisen at Aurangabad."
Bringing Back Dismissed Complaints
Several complaints that were dismissed by lower courts because of issues about where the case should be heard were brought back. The court ordered these cases to be looked at based on their details, stressing that employees should not miss out on justice because of technical issues about where the case should be heard.
The decision ensures that employees can bring their cases to Maharashtra if decisions affecting their jobs were made there, even if they work somewhere else. This aims to stop companies from using technicalities about location to delay or deny justice.
