2012 (2) TMI 621 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of Territorial Jurisdiction - Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal - According to the appellant, his establishment did not get any response from the market nor could get any business, he relieved all the employees from their services and closed down the establishment. However, unaware of the fact that with the closure of establishment, he was also required to surrender the Provident Fund code, he did not take any step in this direction. he received summons from the Office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC), Vadodara, Gujarat directing him to appear before him in person. He appeared and informed the RPFC about the closure of the establishment. However, the RPFC, Vadodara passed orders under Section 7Aof the Provident Fund Act directing the appellant to pay the provident fund dues. The appellant felt aggrieved by this order and he preferred appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which is located in Delhi. This appeal was dismissed. Appellate Tribunal order, assailed by the appellant by filing the writ petition in this Court, dismissal thereof for want of territorial jurisdiction permitting the appellant to approach the appropriate forum. HELD THAT - In the present case, we find that since the impugned orders are passed by the appellate tribunal in Delhi and this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter and no case of forum non conveniens of this Court (or for that matter forum conveniens of Gujarat High Court) is made out, therefore, this Court is competent to deal with the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remitted back for disposal of the writ petition on merits. Doctrine of forum conveniens - The court in which an action is most appropriately brought, considering the best interests and convenience of the parties and witnesses. with reference to a situation where original authority is in one State and the seat of the appellate authority is located in another State. the writ would be maintainable in both the Courts and also that it is the petitioner which has right to choose his forum, we are of the view that primacy to the freedom given to the petitioner needs to be respected. Therefore, we clarify that normally in such circumstances, writ would be maintainable at both the places and only in extreme cases where the Court finds that it is totally inconvenient for a Court to entertain the writ petition and the other High Court may be better equipped to deal with such a case then the Therefore, we clarify that normally in such circumstances, writ would be maintainable at both the places and only in extreme cases where the Court finds that it is totally inconvenient for a Court to entertain the writ petition and the other High Court may be better equipped to deal with such a case then the doctrine of forum conveniens has to be applied.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to entertain the writ petition.
2. Application of the principle of 'forum conveniens'.
3. Merger of the original order into the appellate order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:
The primary issue was whether the Delhi High Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant challenged the order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, which is located in Delhi. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition citing lack of territorial jurisdiction based on the five-Judges Bench judgment in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India. The judgment in Sterling Agro emphasized that merely because an appellate authority is located in Delhi does not automatically confer jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court. However, the five-Judges Bench also recognized that even if a minuscule part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court, a writ petition would be maintainable. The appellate tribunal's location in Delhi provided a part of the cause of action, making the writ petition maintainable in the Delhi High Court.

2. Application of the Principle of 'Forum Conveniens':
The concept of 'forum conveniens' was central to the judgment. According to Sterling Agro, the court must consider the convenience of all parties involved, including the existence of a more appropriate forum, expenses involved, and the law relating to the lis. The doctrine of 'forum conveniens' allows a court to refuse to exercise jurisdiction if another forum is more convenient. The learned Single Judge did not provide reasons for invoking the doctrine of 'forum conveniens' and dismissing the writ petition. The appellate tribunal's location in Delhi constituted a part of the cause of action, and the court should have provided reasons if it chose not to exercise its jurisdiction based on the doctrine of 'forum conveniens'.

3. Merger of the Original Order into the Appellate Order:
The appellant argued that once an appellate authority decides an appeal, the original order merges into the appellate order. Therefore, the location of the appellate authority should determine the jurisdiction. This argument was supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that when an appellate order is passed at a different location from the original order, the writ petition is maintainable at both places, and the petitioner has the right to choose the forum. The larger Bench in Sterling Agro, however, clarified that the mere merger of the original order into the appellate order does not make the location of the appellate authority the sole factor for determining jurisdiction. The court must still consider the doctrine of 'forum conveniens'.

Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, holding that the writ petition was maintainable in Delhi since the appellate tribunal's order constituted a part of the cause of action. The court emphasized that the doctrine of 'forum conveniens' should be applied judiciously, and reasons must be provided if the court chooses not to exercise its jurisdiction. The matter was remitted back for disposal of the writ petition on merits.