The case of Indian Express Newspapers v State of West Bengal (2005) is a significant case in the context of industrial dispute laws in India. The case reaffirms the importance of the situs of employment in determining the jurisdiction of the appropriate government to refer an industrial dispute to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

Indian Express Newspapers v State of West Bengal (2005)
Citation: (2005) 7 SCC 702
Parties: Appellants: Indian Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. & Another  v/s Respondents: State of West Bengal & Others
Judges:

• Y.K. Sabharwal
• Arijit Pasayat
• S.H. Kapadia

Date: 25 August 2005Facts:
The Indian Express Newspapers (hereinafter referred to as the Company) was a print media agency with its headquarters in Mumbai and offices across India. Mr. B.G. Sampt was a workman employed with the Indian Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd.'s (hereinafter referred to as the Company) Calcutta office.

He was transferred to the Company's Bombay office, but he failed to join the new office at the prescribed time. The Company served a show-cause notice on Mr. Sampt and conducted a domestic inquiry against him. Subsequently, the Company terminated Mr. Sampt's service.

Mr. Sampt filed a complaint with the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, alleging that his termination was illegal and unjustified. The Company challenged the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, on the grounds that the appropriate government for the referral of the dispute was the Government of Maharashtra, since Mr. Sampt was transferred to Bombay.

Issue:

• Whether the Government of West Bengal had jurisdiction to refer the industrial dispute arising out of Mr. Sampt's termination to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication?

Contentions of the Parties
Company:

• The Government of West Bengal did not have jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, as the appropriate government for the referral of the dispute was the Government of Maharashtra, since Mr. Sampt was transferred to Bombay.
• The termination of Mr. Sampt's service was legal and justified, as he had failed to join the new office at the prescribed time.

Government of West Bengal:

• The Government of West Bengal had jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, as the dispute arose out of Mr. Sampt's employment with the Company's Calcutta office.
• The termination of Mr. Sampt's service was illegal and unjustified, as the Company had not followed the principles of natural justice.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Indian Express Newspapers v State of West Bengal (2005), held that the Government of West Bengal had jurisdiction to refer the industrial dispute arising out of Mr. Sampt's termination to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication. The fact that Mr. Sampt was transferred to Bombay was not relevant, as the dispute did not arise out of his employment with the Company's Bombay office.

The Supreme Court also held that the termination of Mr. Sampt's service was illegal and unjustified, as the Company had not followed the principles of natural justice. The Company had not given Mr. Sampt a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the allegations against him.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court observed that the question of jurisdiction of the appropriate government to refer an industrial dispute to an Industrial Tribunal is a question of fact. The situs of the employment, the place where the cause of action arose, and the nature of the dispute are all relevant factors to be considered when determining the appropriate government.

In the present case, the Supreme Court held that the Government of West Bengal had jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, as the dispute arose out of Mr. Sampt's employment with the Company's Calcutta office. The fact that Mr. Sampt was transferred to Bombay was not relevant, as the dispute did not arise out of his employment with the Company's Bombay office.

The Supreme Court also observed that the principles of natural justice require that a party to a dispute be heard before a decision is made against them. In the present case, the Company had not given Mr. Sampt a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the allegations against him. Therefore, the termination of Mr. Sampt's service was illegal and unjustified.

The Supreme Court set aside the termination of Mr. Sampt's service and directed the Company to reinstate him with full back wages.

Analysis
The case of Indian Express Newspapers v State of West Bengal (2005) is significant for a number of reasons. First, the case reaffirms the importance of the situs of employment in determining the jurisdiction of the appropriate government to refer an industrial dispute to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. This is important because it ensures that workers are able to have their disputes adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal in the state where they are employed, which is likely to be the state where they are most familiar with the legal system and where they have the most convenient access to justice.

Second, the case clarifies the meaning of the term "situs of employment" in the context of industrial dispute laws. The Supreme Court held that the situs of employment is not necessarily the place where the worker is physically located at the time of the dispute. Rather, the situs of employment is the place where the cause of action arose. In the present case, the cause of action arose out of Mr. Sampt's employment with the Company's Calcutta office, even though he was transferred to Bombay before the dispute arose.

Third, the case highlights the importance of considering the nature of the dispute when determining the jurisdiction of the appropriate government. The Supreme Court held that the nature of the dispute is a relevant factor to be considered because it may help to determine the situs of employment. In the present case, the dispute arose out of Mr. Sampt's employment with the Company's Calcutta office, even though he was transferred to Bombay before the dispute arose. This is because the dispute was related to Mr. Sampt's terms and conditions of employment, which were determined by his employment contract with the Company's Calcutta office.

The case could be compared to other cases where the Supreme Court of India has considered the question of jurisdiction in industrial dispute cases. For example, in the case of Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd. v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd. (1973), the Supreme Court held that the appropriate government for the referral of a dispute is the government of the state where the cause of action arose, even if the establishment where the workman is employed is located in another state.

Analysis with Aspect of Labour Law
The case of Indian Express Newspapers v State of West Bengal (2005) is a significant case in the context of Indian labour law. The case reaffirms the importance of the situs of employment in determining the jurisdiction of the appropriate government to refer an industrial dispute to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The case also highlights the importance of the principles of natural justice in the context of industrial disputes.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA) is the primary legislation governing industrial disputes in India. Section 10 of the IDA provides that any industrial dispute may be referred to an Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate government. The appropriate government is the government of the state in which the establishment where the dispute arose is situated.

In the present case, the Supreme Court held that the Government of West Bengal had jurisdiction to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, as the dispute arose out of Mr. Sampt's employment with the Company's Calcutta office. The fact that Mr. Sampt was transferred to Bombay was not relevant, as the dispute did not arise out of his employment with the Company's Bombay office.

The Supreme Court also held that the termination of Mr. Sampt's service was illegal and unjustified, as the Company had not followed the principles of natural justice. The Company had not given Mr. Sampt a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the allegations against him.

The principles of natural justice are fundamental principles of Indian law that apply to all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The principles of natural justice require that a party to a dispute be given a fair hearing before a decision is made against them. In the present case, the Company had not given Mr. Sampt a fair hearing, and therefore the termination of his service was illegal and unjustified.

The case of Indian Express Newspapers v State of West Bengal (2005) is an important case for Indian labour law because it protects the rights of workers who are transferred to a different state by their employer. The Supreme Court held that workers who are transferred to a different state do not lose their right to have their disputes adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal in the state where they were originally employed.

The case also sends a strong message to employers that they must follow the principles of natural justice when terminating the services of their employees.

Conclusion
The case of Indian Express Newspapers v State of West Bengal (2005) is a significant case in the context of industrial dispute laws in India. The case reaffirms the importance of the situs of employment in determining the jurisdiction of the appropriate government to refer an industrial dispute to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The case also clarifies the meaning of the term "situs of employment" and highlights the importance of considering the nature of the dispute when determining the jurisdiction of the appropriate government.

The case is also significant because it upholds the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the Company had been given a sufficient opportunity to be heard before the Government of West Bengal referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. This is important because it ensures that both parties to a dispute have a fair chance to present their case before a decision is made. The case also sends a strong message to employers that they must follow the principles of natural justice when terminating the services of their employees. Written By: Khushi