Writ Petition is not maintainable if no part of the cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction.

The petitioner joined the respondent no. 3 establishment in 1988.

Following a termination in 1990, the 2nd Labour Court, Calcutta, awarded reinstatement with full back wages in 1999.

On March 26, 2002, a memorandum of settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was executed, wherein the petitioner accepted ₹3,50,000 as full and final settlement of all claims and voluntarily left the service.

Twenty-one years later, in 2023, the petitioner filed a representation and subsequently this writ petition seeking arrear Provident Fund (PF) and Pension dues from December 1990 to March 2002.

The respondent no. 3 (employer) and respondent no. 2 (RPF Commissioner) are both located in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, and the petitioner’s service was rendered entirely in Chennai.

1. Whether the High Court at Calcutta has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when the establishment and the relevant authorities are located outside its territory.

2. Whether the fact that an earlier award was passed by a Labour Court in Calcutta and a previous writ was entertained by this Court confers jurisdiction for the present claim for PF arrears.

Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that a High Court can exercise jurisdiction only if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial limits.

Definition of "cause of action" from Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure as a bundle of facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove his right to judgment.

The principles established in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and National Textile Corpn. Ltd. v. Haribox Swalram, that mere residence of a petitioner or receipt of correspondence does not constitute an integral part of the cause of action.

The "integral facts" and "nexus" tests from State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions Private Limited, holding that facts not germane to the specific relief sought do not confer jurisdiction.

The court reasoned that although a previous Labour Court award was passed in Calcutta, the current dispute pertains specifically to the non-payment of PF dues by an employer and a PF Authority both situated in Chennai.

The petitioner was appointed in Chennai, worked in Chennai, and submitted his 2023 representation to authorities in Chennai; additionally, the settlement of 2002 also took place in Chennai.

Applying the "integral part of cause of action" test, the court found that since the establishment has no branch in West Bengal and all records are maintained in Tamil Nadu, no part of the specific cause of action regarding the disbursement of PF arrears arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.

The court noted that territorial jurisdiction can be raised at any stage and the prior proceedings did not preclude the current challenge.

The writ petition WPA 8712 of 2025 was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to pursue the case before the High Court at Madras, and all interim orders were vacated.