9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if writ petition is allowed, will also be granted to them where the petitioners are working viz at Noida, U.P. Thus, no part of the cause of action arises at Delhi. Merely because the corporate office of the employer viz the respondent no. 2 is situated at Delhi, would not mean that this Court will have territorial jurisdiction because it is settled law that merely by the head office issuing any circular or notification or policy etc by a decision taken at the head office/corporate office/registered office which is situated at Delhi will not confer territorial jurisdiction to the Courts at Delhi and as is so held by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254 and which has been considered by me recently in the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Mukul Gupta Vs. Management Development Institute & Anr. in W.P.(C) no. 7944/2014 decided on 27.1.2015. Paras 2 to 5 of the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Mukul Gupta (supra) read as under:- "2. Petitioner is admittedly residing in Gurgaon, Haryana. Petitioner is employed with the respondent no. 1 viz Management Development Institute (MDI) at its office at Gurgaon. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Delhi but at Bangalore, for revision of scales of pay and allowances of the executives. Other reliefs with respect to restoring of benefits and for refunding of amounts are also the reliefs which are claimed against the employer-respondent no. 3. Merely because the employer/respondent no. 3 will have to implement the notifications issued by the respondent no. 1 will not mean that Delhi High Court would have jurisdiction because the notifications have been issued in Delhi because in this case there is no challenge for quashing of the notifications, but reliefs are claimed for implementation of the notifications, and which implementation necessarily will have to be done either at Bangalore where the respondent no. 3 is situated or at the place of work of the petitioners which is at Ghaziabad i.e. not Delhi. 9. In fact, the judgment which is relied upon by the petitioners answers the issue of territorial jurisdiction squarely against the petitioners and paras 7 and 8 are relevant and they read as under:- "7. 'Cause of action', for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, for all intent and purport, must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places. In other words, as order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action, a writ petition would 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. 8. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) has been followed by this Court in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and Ors. 2006CriLJ1683 stating: 26. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India 14 a three-Judge Bench of this Court clearly held that with a view to determine the jurisdiction of one High Court vis-à-vis the other the facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be made and the facts which have nothing to do therewith cannot give rise to a cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction of a court. In that case it was clearly held that only because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner by placing reliance upon the language of Annexure P-14-termination letter dated 28.10.2014, that this will confer territorial jurisdiction of this Court because the same refers to the decision of the Board of Governors of MDI which took place at Delhi. As already stated above, mere situs of office/maker which takes a decision will not confer territorial jurisdiction once that decision has to be implemented at a different place, and which in this is where the petitioner has rendered services viz at Gurgaon. Consequently, the situs of the registered office of respondent no. 1 at Delhi would not confer territorial jurisdiction of this Court as argued by the petitioner, and more so because an internal decision which is not communicated does not give rise to any rights vide Bachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395." (emphasis supplied) 3. The facts of the present case are more or less identical with the facts in the case of Dr. Mukul Gupta (supra) and therefore the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that this Court has territorial jurisdiction on account of the following aspects:- (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the office of the petitioners/employees at Noida, U.P. and the situs of issuing of this office order or executive instructions or police decision or instructions being an immaterial aspect qua territorial jurisdiction as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) . The first argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is therefore rejected. 7. The second argument of the corporate office being situated in Delhi and which will give territorial jurisdiction to Delhi will stand decided in terms of the first argument which is rejected. 8. The third argument urged on behalf of the petitioner that this Court would have territorial jurisdiction in view of Section 27 of the Act is once again an argument without merit and let us therefore refer to Section 27 of the Act which reads as under:- "Section 27. Act to have overriding effect.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act; or in any decree or order of any Court, tribunal or other authority." 9. All that Section 27 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
