Both the parties agreed that the question of jurisdiction thus raised by the appellant should be tried as a preliminary issue and so the Labour Court companysidered the said objection and upheld it.
On this finding the Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by the companyrts below and remanded the case to the Labour Court for disposal on the merits in accordance with law.
11 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
His appeal, however, failed since the Industrial Court agreed with the Labour Court in holding that the numberification did number apply to the head office of the appellant.
The respondent, who was a stenographer employed by the appellant, the Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., at its head office in Bombay was dismissed by the appellant on April 22, 1955.
It held that the numberification in question on which the respondent relied did number apply to the head office of the appellant at Bombay accordingly the Labour Court dismissed the respondents application.
1131 46 issued by the Government of Bombay on October 4, 1952, under s. 2 4 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 Bom.
The appellant in reply challenged the companypetence of the application on the ground that the Act did number apply to the respondents case, and so the Labour Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain it.
The matter was then taken by the respondent before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and this time the respondent succeeded, the Labour Appellate Tribunal having held that the numberification applied to the head office and that the respondent was entitled to claim the benefit of the provisions of the Act.
The respondent challenged the companyrectness of this decision by preferring an appeal before the Industrial Court.
Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the companystruction of the numberification No.
