TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , inasmuch as, the actual implementation by giving of service benefits to the petitioners/employees will not be at Delhi but will only and only be at Noida, U.P. - merely because the situs of the office of the maker of an executive order or instructions passed or will be passed, is by the respondent no. 2 being the corporate office at Delhi the same will not give territorial jurisdiction to this Court inasmuch as the necessary executive order or the instructions or the policy which emanates from that executive order or instructions or office memorandum will have to be given effect to and implemented at 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. [ 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT] . The first argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is therefore rejected. 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 rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent 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. Petitioner has served i.e. rendered services with the Management Development Institute (MDI) at Gurgaon. Petitioner has never worked with the employer-Management Development Institute (MDI) at Delhi. In this writ petition, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It means a bundle of facts which are required to be proved. The entire bundle of facts pleaded, however, need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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- -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 the High Court within whose jurisdiction a legislation is passed, it would not have the sole territorial jurisdiction but all the High Courts where cause of action arises, will have jurisdiction. (emphasis added) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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) The Sixth Central Pay Commission Report was given in Delhi, and benefit of which the petitioners are claiming in Delhi, and therefore this Court has territorial jurisdiction. (ii) The corporate office o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orial 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 the Act states is that the provision of this Act will have an effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent thereof in any other law, however, the said provision in no way makes the cause of action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
