Territorial jurisdiction in industrial disputes turns on situs of employment and real nexus, not mere residence or receipt of dismissal order.

Territorial jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act depends on the situs of employment, the employer's control over the workman, and a real nexus between the dispute and the territory. Where a workman was transferred from Delhi to Kanpur under the accepted terms of appointment, the Delhi office ceased to control the employment once the transfer took effect. Mere residence in Delhi or receipt of the dismissal order there did not create jurisdiction. Because the disciplinary proceedings and dismissal substantially arose at Kanpur, the Delhi Government lacked territorial jurisdiction to make the reference, and the reference order was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Government of NCT of Delhi had territorial jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to refer the dispute arising from dismissal of a workman whose services had been transferred from Delhi to Kanpur.

Analysis: The transfer order, issued in accordance with the accepted terms of appointment, relieved the workman from the Delhi office and required her to report at Kanpur. She did not challenge the transfer and did not join at the transferred place. On the authorities governing industrial disputes, territorial jurisdiction depends on the situs of employment and the control over the employment, together with a real nexus between the dispute and the territory of the State. Mere residence of the workman or receipt of the dismissal order at Delhi did not create jurisdiction. Once the transfer took effect, the Delhi office ceased to have control over the employment, and the dispute arising from dismissal after disciplinary proceedings at Kanpur substantially arose at Kanpur.

Conclusion: The Delhi Government lacked territorial jurisdiction to make the reference, and the impugned reference order was liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

---