TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - Dated:- 4-3-2008 - S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ. Anip Sachthey for the Appellant. JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. Leave granted. The respondent was an employee of Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. appellant No. 1 herein in the Mugma area, in the district of Dhanbad, Jharkhand. The general manager of the area, whose office is also situated at Mugma was his appointing and disciplinary authority. The services of the respondent were terminated at Mugma. He filed a writ application before the Calcutta High Court. As he was serving in the Mugma area and the office of the genetal manger was situated at Mugma which is in the State of Jharkhand a preliminary objection was raised in regard to the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction to decide the matter Simply because the head office of the company is at Calcutta is not decisive of the matter as held in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu [1994] 4 SCC 711, because that would not give a cause of action to the party. Cause of action is a bundle of facts which decides the territorial jurisdiction of the court, if any of the cause of action has arisen to the party within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court then the High Court at Calcutta will have jurisdiction to decide the matter. Simply because a head office of the company is within the territorial limits of the Calcutta High Court, that will not give jurisdiction to the Calcutta High Court unless cause of action arises wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly incorporated by way of amendment enabling a High Court to issue writ even in cases where the respondents are functioning beyond its territorial limit if the cause of action has arisen fully or in part within its territorial limit. Once it is held that article 226(1) is clearly application there in no necessity of invoking article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. From the order sought to be reviewed, we for a that Division Bench con fined its attention to the cause of action of the present writ application but totally ignored the fact that the employer, the Government company, has its registered office within the district of Burdwan and consequently the question whether cause of action had really arisen within the territorial limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot be said to give rise to a cause of action which would confer jurisdiction on the court." As regards the question as to whether situs of office of the appellant would be relevant, this court noticed decisions of this court in Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331 and U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad v. State of U. P. [1995] 4 SCC 738, to hold (page 263 of [2004] 6 SCC). See page 679 of 120 Comp Cas : "26. The view taken by this court in U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad [1995] 4 SCC 738, that the situs of issue of an order or notification by the Government would come within the meaning of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction it is situate having regard to the fact that the order of the appellate authority is also required to be set aside and as the order of the original authority merges with that of the appellate authority." Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. [2004] 6 SCC 254 [2004] 120 Comp Cas 672 (SC), has been followed by this court in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v . Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. [2006] 3 SCC 658 [2006] 130 Comp. Cas. 390, 401 (SC) stating (page 669) : "26. In Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 6 SCC 254 [2004] 120 Comp. Cas. 672 (SC), a three-judge Bench of this court clearly held that with a view to determine the jurisdiction of one High Court vis-a-vis the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Recruit) v. State of U. P. [2006]. 10 SCC 346, this court held (page 367) : "44. The second impugned order dated April 12, 2004. is further vitiated for the following reasons : ( a ) Forum. The seniority list under challenge in the second writ petition was the seniority list of the Uttaranchal State Government of 2002, and such challenge could not have been made before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. ( b ) Parties. None of the direct recruits who would be directly affected by the order were made parries to the writ petition. There fore, the High Court did not have the benefit of competing arguments in the matter. Even though, the Principal Secretary of the State or Uttaranchal was made a party, the said party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
