Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2012 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (2) TMI 621 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of the writ petition on the ground of Territorial Jurisdiction - Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal - According to the appellant, his establishment did not get any response from the market nor could get any business, he relieved all the employees from their services and closed down the establishment. However, unaware of the fact that with the closure of establishment, he was also required to surrender the Provident Fund code, he did not take any step in this direction. he received summons from the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), Vadodara, Gujarat directing him to appear before him in person. He appeared and informed the RPFC about the closure of the establishment. However, the RPFC, Vadodara passed orders under Section 7Aof the Provident Fund Act directing the appellant to pay the provident fund dues. The appellant felt aggrieved by this order and he preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which is located in Delhi. This appeal was dismissed. Appellate Tribunal order, assailed by the appellant by filing the writ petition in this Court, dismissal thereof for want of territorial jurisdiction permitting the appellant to approach the appropriate forum. HELD THAT :- In the present case, we find that since the impugned orders are passed by the appellate tribunal in Delhi and this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter and no case of forum non conveniens of this Court (or for that matter forum conveniens of Gujarat High Court) is made out, therefore, this Court is competent to deal with the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remitted back for disposal of the writ petition on merits. Doctrine of forum conveniens - "The court in which an action is most appropriately brought, considering the best interests and convenience of the parties and witnesses." with reference to a situation where original authority is in one State and the seat of the appellate authority is located in another State. the writ would be maintainable in both the Courts and also that it is the petitioner which has right to choose his forum, we are of the view that primacy to the freedom given to the petitioner needs to be respected. Therefore, we clarify that normally in such circumstances, writ would be maintainable at both the places and only in extreme cases where the Court finds that it is totally inconvenient for a Court to entertain the writ petition and the other High Court may be better equipped to deal with such a case then the Therefore, we clarify that normally in such circumstances, writ would be maintainable at both the places and only in extreme cases where the Court finds that it is totally inconvenient for a Court to entertain the writ petition and the other High Court may be better equipped to deal with such a case then the doctrine of forum conveniens has to be applied.
|