2008 (3) TMI 480 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of court - Held that - Appeal allowed. 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 Jharkhand only because the head office of the appellant-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.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court in a writ application filed by an employee terminated in Mugma area, Jharkhand.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court in a writ application filed by an employee terminated in Mugma area, Jharkhand. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court initially opined that the Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition due to the absence of prior approval from the head office in Calcutta for the termination order. However, a review application was filed, and it was allowed, highlighting that the registered office of the company should be deemed its site for litigations and that the employer must be made a necessary party for an effective order. The judgment emphasized that the cause of action is crucial in determining territorial jurisdiction, as per apex court decisions cited in the case.

The legal principle of 'cause of action' was extensively discussed, emphasizing that it must have a nexus with the facts pleaded in the writ petition for a court to have jurisdiction. The judgment referred to various precedents to establish that the situs of the office of the employer is not determinative of jurisdiction if the cause of action does not arise within that jurisdiction. It was clarified that the entire cause of action must arise within a court's jurisdiction for it to have the authority to entertain the matter.

The judgment also cited cases to support the notion that a court's jurisdiction is based on where the cause of action arises, and the presence of the employer's office in a particular jurisdiction does not automatically confer jurisdiction on the court. The decision emphasized that the head office's location does not determine jurisdiction, especially if it is not directly linked to the issue at hand. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, highlighting that the head office's location in West Bengal did not grant jurisdiction to the Calcutta High Court when the cause of action arose in Jharkhand.