Technico Agri Seience Ltd. and Company vs State Of U.P. And Others

Hon''ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that respondent workman was employed with the petitioner company which is situated in Chandigarh and he submitted his resignation in Chandigarh, as such, respondent no. 2, Presiding Officer, U.P., Meerut will have no territorial jurisdiction over the dispute. It is further submitted that application u/s 33C (2) of the Act was moved claiming certain amount alleged to have been spent by the petitioner on behalf of the company while posted at Chandigarh, which is disputed and without there being any adjudication in this regard, application u/s 33C (2) of the Act, which is in the nature of execution proceedings, was not maintainable.

Prima facie, there appears to be force in the submission and the matter requires scrutiny.

Issue notice to respondent no. 3, who may file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall take steps for service of notice on the respondent by registered post within one week. Office shall issue notices returnable at an early date.

List after service of notice on the respondent no. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, until further orders of this Court, further proceedings of Misc. Case No. 47 of 2011, Rajeev Kumar v. M/s Technico Agri Sciences Ltd., Chandigarh pending before Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Meerut shall remain stayed.