2016 (12) TMI 1768 - HC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction - Termination of contractual services with the respondent no.2 - non-service of termination order to petitioner - whether merely because the Government of India has issued its letter dated 27.10.2015 at Delhi would this ipso facto give territorial jurisdiction to this Court although this letter has not been communicated to the petitioner at Delhi and has in fact been communicated to the petitioner at Goa in terms of the subsequent letter dated 28.10.2015? - Held that - A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court way back in the year 1963 in the judgment in the case of Bachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab 1962 (3) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has held that orders passed in Government files unless communicated would not give a legal right to a person. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachhittar Singh has been consistently followed thereafter and it is the law of the land. A cause of action in law means that an enforceable right in law accrues. When a right accrues simultaneously a liability also arises against a person. If an enforceable right arises only on communication of the order then a cause of action arises and is complete only when the communication of the order to the person concerned is complete. Without such communication of an order to the concerned person the cause of action is not complete for filing of a case in a court of law. This Court has no territorial jurisdiction and the writ petition is therefore dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Termination of contractual services.
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Termination of Contractual Services:
The petitioner challenged the termination of his contractual services as Director (Corporate, Planning, Projects & Business Development) with Goa Shipyard Ltd. The termination orders were dated 27.10.2015 and 28.10.2015. The letter dated 27.10.2015 from the Ministry of Defence conveyed the approval for termination with immediate effect, on payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice. The letter dated 28.10.2015 from Goa Shipyard Ltd. confirmed the termination effective from 28.10.2015, enclosing a cheque for three months' salary and instructing the petitioner to hand over charge and company belongings by 1900 hrs.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court:
The primary legal contention was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner argued that since the termination order dated 27.10.2015 was issued by the Government of India in New Delhi, the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment in Mukul Gupta Vs. Management Development Institute & Anr., which suggested that if the decision to terminate was made in Delhi, part of the cause of action arose there, thus conferring jurisdiction.

The court examined the argument and the binding precedents. It referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Bachhittar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, which established that an order must be communicated to be legally effective. This principle was reaffirmed in Sethi Auto Service Station and Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others, which held that an order becomes executable only upon communication to the concerned person.

The court noted that the petitioner was employed and served in Goa, and the termination order was communicated to him in Goa. Therefore, the cause of action arose in Goa, not Delhi. The court distinguished the present case from Mukul Gupta, emphasizing that the latter did not consider the binding Supreme Court precedents.

The court also referenced the Full Bench judgment in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which discussed the concept of forum conveniens and the necessity of part of the cause of action arising within the court's jurisdiction. It concluded that merely having an order in the files in Delhi did not confer territorial jurisdiction if the order was communicated elsewhere.

Conclusion:
The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as the termination order was communicated to the petitioner in Goa. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to approach the competent court with territorial jurisdiction.