Ramakrishnan was employed by the Mukateshwara Silk Company Ltd. at its registered office in Mumbai in the dyeing section in the year 1988. He was later on promoted in 1992 and again in 2000 and continued to be located at

The fact of the case is similar to the case of 'Nandram vs. Garware Properties Ltd' (SC) Civil Appeal No. 1409 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33917 of 2011) [Decided on 16/02/2016]. Ramakrishnan was employed at the office in Mumbai. He was only transferred to its establishment in Jamnagar. The decision to close down the establishment at Jamnagar was taken by the company in Mumbai. The decision to terminate the services of Ramakrishnan was taken in Mumbai. Thus, part of cause of actions has arisen in Mumbai. No doubt, the Labor Court in Jamnagar has the jurisdiction to consider the case of Ramakrishnan if he prefers to institute the suit there. But that does not mean that the Labor Court in Mumbai within whose jurisdiction the management of the company has taken the decision to close down the establishment in Jamnagar and pursuant to which services of Ramakrishnan were terminated does not have the jurisdiction. Hence, both the Labor Courts in Mumbai and Jamnagar have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Therefore, Ramakrishnan can institute the suit in the Labor Court in Mumbai.