9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1438 - SC - Indian LawsDoctrine of forum non convenience - Territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition - impugned order was passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal situated in Delhi - Petitioner is situated in Faridabad in Haryana - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case as they emerged before the Delhi High Court it is apparent that the Appellant Dina Nath Public School is situated in Faridabad Haryana. Likewise the second and third Respondents are also situated in Faridabad. During the course of the hearing learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third Respondent who is a former employee of the school also stated that it would be more convenient for her to pursue the proceedings before the Delhi High Court as opposed to the Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Be that as it may having regard to the fact that the parties are all situated at Faridabad and since the Delhi High Court has as a matter of principle followed its own earlier decision and come to the conclusion that it had territorial jurisdiction but declined to entertain the writ petition only on the ground of forum non-convenience we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and to restore the proceedings back to the Delhi High Court for disposal. The impugned order set aside - the writ petition filed before the Single Judge shall stand restored to the file for disposal on merits.
Issues:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court 2. Forum non-convenience determination 3. Applicability of the Employees Provident Fund Act 4. Appeal against EPFAT orders 5. Restoration of writ petitions for disposal Analysis: Territorial Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court: The appeal arose from a judgment of the Delhi High Court affirming its territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition due to the impugned order being passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal situated in Delhi. The Delhi High Court, however, upheld the dismissal of the writ petition based on forum non-convenience, as the Petitioner was situated in Faridabad, Haryana, and the proceedings under the EPF Act were initiated in that state. The primary reason for invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court was the EPFAT being located in Delhi. Forum Non-Convenience Determination: The court affirmed the finding of the Single Judge on forum non-convenience, emphasizing that the Petitioner, along with the second and third Respondents, were situated in Faridabad. Despite the third Respondent expressing a preference for pursuing proceedings before the Delhi High Court rather than the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, the Delhi High Court declined to entertain the writ petition solely on the grounds of forum non-convenience. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the proceedings were restored to the Delhi High Court for disposal. Applicability of the Employees Provident Fund Act: The case involved the applicability of the Employees Provident Fund Act to the Appellant, with notices and orders issued by the first Respondent under the EPF Act. Various appeals and writ petitions were filed challenging these orders, leading to a series of legal proceedings before the EPFAT, Single Judge, and Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Appeal Against EPFAT Orders: The Appellant had filed appeals before the EPFAT challenging orders passed by the first Respondent under the EPF Act. Despite subsequent legal challenges through writ petitions before the Delhi High Court, the jurisdiction and forum non-convenience issues remained central to the litigation. Restoration of Writ Petitions for Disposal: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's order and restoring the writ petition before the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court for disposal on merits. Additionally, another writ petition filed by the second Respondent before the Delhi High Court was also restored for joint disposal with the companion writ petition. The Court directed expeditious disposal of the pending writ petitions within four months to ensure timely resolution of the legal matters. This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues addressed in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case's background, proceedings, and the Supreme Court's decision.
|
