Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1736 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors
RESPONDENT:
Kalyan Banerjee
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/03/2008
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1736 OF 2008
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7375 of 2006]
S.B. SINHA, J :
1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent was an employee of Eastern Coal Fields Limited,
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 General Manager 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 Court. In support of the said objection, reliance was
placed upon a decision of a learned Single Judge in N.N. Singh v. Coal India
Limited [C.O. No. 5869 (W) of 1994].
3. The learned Single Judge, however, disagreed with the said view and
referred the matter to the Division Bench. The Division Bench by a
judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 opined that the Calcutta High Court
had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition stating:
"\005In this case the Division Bench relying on an
observation of the learned Single Judge held that
since the registered office of Eastern Coalfields
Ltd. is situated at Sanctoria, Burdwan within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court which
is a necessary party and also the order of approval
for dismissal was ultimately obtained from the
Director, Personnel of the Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,
whose office is at the said registered office, the
writ petition can be maintained before the Calcutta
High Court. Therefore, this case was essentially
decided on facts, but there is no such averments in
the petition that the order of termination, passed by
the General Manager, Badjna Colliery, Mugma
Area, Dhanbad had obtained any prior approval
from the head office at Calcutta. Therefore, this
decision of the Division Bench of this Court does
not held the writ petitioner/ respondent in this case.
As per the three Apex Court decisions,
referred to above, cause of action is decisive of the
matter for acquiring territorial jurisdiction 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 & Natural Gas
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu (supra)
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 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 within the territorial
jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court."
4. A review application was filed thereagainst. By reason of the
impugned judgment dated 25.11.2005, the said review application has been
allowed holding that the Division Bench had not taken into consideration
two other decisions of the Division Benches of the said Court, viz., Ram
Brich Muchi v. Coal India Limited [A.P.O.T. No. 343 of 2002] and Eastern
Coal Fields Ltd. v. Khagen Bouri & Ors. [2002 (1) C.L.R. 884]. It was
furthermore opined:
"As provided in the Companies Act, a company is
a body corporate and its registered office should be
deemed to be its site for the purpose of all
litigations. The law is equally settled that an
employee challenging an order of dismissal cannot
get an effective order unless the employer is made
party to the litigation and as such, in this case, the
Eastern Coal Fields Limited having its registered
office in the district of Burdwan is a necessary
party and if the Court proposed to give relief to the
writ petitioner, specific direction of reinstatement
must be given to the employer to be carried out
through its appropriate officers. As provided in
Article 226(1) of the constitution of India, even if
the cause of action arises outside the territorial
limit of High Court, such High Court can entertain
a writ application if the person sought to be bound
by the order of the Court is stationed within the
territorial limit. Article 226(2) is an additional
provision subsequently 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
applicable, there is no necessity of invoking
Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. From
the order sought to be reviewed, we find that
Division Bench confined 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 of this Court was immaterial."
5. Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, submitted that it is not a case where sanction of the corporate
office or head office was required to be taken. The entire cause of action
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
having arisen within the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court, the
Calcutta High Court could not have exercised any jurisdiction in the matter.
6. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus is
conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Article 226(2), however, provides that if cause of action had arisen in
more than one court, any of the courts where part of cause of action arises
will have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
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 proved is material facts whereupon a writ petition can be allowed.
The question to some extent was considered by a Three-Judge Bench
of this Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Another
[(2004) 6 SCC 254] stating:
"18. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must
have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer 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, Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and others [(1995)
4 SCC 738] to hold:
"26. The view taken by this Court in U.P.
Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad that the
situs of issue of an order or notification by the
Governmen t would come within the meaning of
the expression "cases arising" in clause 14 of the
(Amalgamation) Order is not a correct view of law
for the reason hereafter stated and to that extent the
said decision is overruled. In fact, a legislation, it
is trite, is not confined to a statute enacted by
Parliament or the legislature of a State, which
would include delegated legislation and
subordinate legislation or an executive order made
by the Union of India, State or any other statutory
authority. In a case where the field is not covered
by any statutory rule, executive instructions issued
in this behalf shall also come within the purview
thereof. Situs of office of Parliament, legislature of
a State or authorities empowered to make
subordinate legislation would not by itself
constitute any cause of action or cases arising. In
other words, framing of a statute, statutory rule or
issue of an executive order or instruction would
not confer jurisdiction upon a court only because
of the situs of the office of the maker thereof.
27. When an order, however, is passed by a court
or tribunal or an executive authority whether under
provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause
of action arises at that 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
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 Others [(2006) 3
SCC 658] 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\005"
9. In Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and Another [(2006) 6
SCC 207], this Court held:
"12. The expression "cause of action" has acquired
a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense
"cause of action" means the circumstances forming
the infraction of the right or the immediate
occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it
means the necessary conditions for the
maintenance of the suit, including not only the
infraction of the right, but also the infraction
coupled with the right itself. Compendiously, as
noted above, the expression means every fact,
which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to
prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to
the judgment of the court. Every fact, which is
necessary to be proved, as distinguished from
every piece of evidence, which is necessary to
prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action".
(See Rajasthan High Court Advocates’ Assn. v.
Union of India)"
10. In Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recuirt) and Others v.
State of U.P. and Others [(2006) 10 SCC 346], this Court held:
"44. The second impugned order dated 12-4-2004
is further vitiated for the following reasons:
( a ) Forum .\027The 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 .\027None of the direct recruits who
would be directly affected by the order were made
parties to the writ petition. Therefore the High
Court did not have the benefit of competing
arguments in the matter. Even though, the
Principal Secretary of the State of Uttaranchal was
made a party, the said party was never served. The
only respondent which was heard was the State of
U.P. which had no stake in the matter at all since
all of the writ petitioners before the Lucknow
Bench of the Allahabad High Court were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
employees of the State of Uttaranchal on the
relevant date. It is, therefore, evident that the
relevant material was not placed before the
Allahabad High Court for the purpose of deciding
the writ petition. Accordingly, the permission had
to be taken from this Court by the present
appellants to prefer the SLPs."
These directions are authorities for the proposition that only that court
will have jurisdiction within which, the entire cause of action had arisen. In
this case, no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the
Calcutta High Court.
11. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High
Court that the entire cause of action arose in Mugma Area within the State of
Jharkhand, we are of the opinion that only because the Head Office of the
appellant \026 company was situated in the State of West Bengal, the same by
itself will not confer any jurisdiction upon the Calcutta High Court,
particularly when the Head Office had nothing to do with the order of
punishment passed against the respondent.
12. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.