Bombay HC Can Hear BPCL Employee’s Claim For Mumbai-Era Promotions Despite His Later Transfer To Kochi

The Petitioner sought promotion/upgradation from Job Group B to C in 2002, C to D in 2007, and D to E in 2012, with consequential benefits, and disclosure of the applicable promotion policies

Respondent No. 1 objected to the Bombay High Court’s territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the Petitioner was posted at the Kochi Refinery when he filed the Petition in 2017, later worked and retired there, and that no part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai

The Petitioner maintained that the promotions claimed related to periods when he was employed in Mumbai and that relevant decisions were made by Respondent No. 1’s Human Resource Department there

The Court considered only the preliminary objection to jurisdiction

Whether the Bombay High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution to entertain the Petition seeking promotions relating to the Petitioner’s employment in Mumbai

Whether the Petitioner’s subsequent transfer to Kochi and retirement there displaced or defeated that jurisdiction

Article 226(2) permits a High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territory, notwithstanding that the authority’s seat or the respondent’s residence is elsewhere

Under Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, cause of action comprises the material facts necessary to establish the right to relief, and even a fraction of it may confer jurisdiction

Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu requires the jurisdictional question to be determined from the petition’s pleaded facts, without deciding their truth at that stage

Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim and State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions Pvt. Ltd. require the pleaded facts to be material, essential or integral to the claim, with a nexus to the subject matter of the challenge

The Court distinguished V.G. Jagdishan v. Indofos Industries Ltd. and J. Balaji v. The Hindu, where the employment and termination giving rise to the disputes occurred outside the forum’s territory

The Court treated the relief sought as concerning promotions allegedly due in 2002, 2007 and 2012, when the Petitioner was employed in Mumbai.

It held that the location of the relevant employment and the alleged promotion-related decisions of Respondent No. 1’s Human Resource Department in Mumbai constituted a material part of the cause of action; Respondent No. 1’s Mumbai registered office was also noted

The later transfer to Kochi in 2014 and retirement there did not alter the location of the cause of action underlying the promotion claims

The cited cases concerning termination disputes were distinguishable because the employees in those cases worked, and were terminated, outside the forum’s territory

It made no order as to costs and directed that the Petition be listed for directions on 25 November 2026