2015 (2) TMI 1396 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking directions for the members of the petitioner no. 1/Union being appointed to the posts of Assistant Grade III Technical (W-1) with the grade pay of Rs. 1,900/- instead of Rs. 1,800/- - HELD THAT - The first argument that the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report has been given in Delhi and therefore this Court will have territorial jurisdiction, is an argument which has no substance because the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report was given qua government employees and the petitioners are admittedly not government employees but they are employees of respondent no. 2 and working with the respondent no. 3 (which is the unit of the respondent no. 2) at Noida. Taking that the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report has to be implemented qua the employees of the respondent no. 2 who are posted at Noida, yet, this Court would have no territorial jurisdiction even if the Sixth Central Pay Commission report is to be given effect by the respondent no. 2 being the corporate office, inasmuch as, the actual implementation by giving of service benefits to the petitioners/employees will not be at Delhi but will only and only be at Noida, U.P. - merely because the situs of the office of the maker of an executive order or instructions passed or will be passed, is by the respondent no. 2 being the corporate office at Delhi the same will not give territorial jurisdiction to this Court inasmuch as the necessary executive order or the instructions or the policy which emanates from that executive order or instructions or office memorandum will have to be given effect to and implemented at the office of the petitioners/employees at Noida, U.P. and the situs of issuing of this office order or executive instructions or police decision or instructions being an immaterial aspect qua territorial jurisdiction as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT . The first argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is therefore rejected. The second argument of the corporate office being situated in Delhi and which will give territorial jurisdiction to Delhi will stand decided in terms of the first argument which is rejected. The third argument urged on behalf of the petitioner that this Court would have territorial jurisdiction in view of Section 27 of the Act is once again an argument without merit - All that Section 27 of the Act states is that the provision of this Act will have an effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent thereof in any other law, however, the said provision in no way makes the cause of action arise in Delhi because this provision does not state that a cause of action arising in Noida automatically arises in Delhi merely because Noida is covered in the National Capital Region. Noida is covered in the National Capital Region only for the purpose of said 1985 Act which is only for development of the National Capital Region as per the Act. The Act does not change the law with respect to the arising of cause of action qua the territorial jurisdiction of Courts. The third argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is also therefore rejected. There is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,000/- payable to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within a period of four weeks from today.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
2. Implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report.
3. Applicability of Section 27 of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:
The primary issue in this case was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The petitioners, employees of the Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. (SPMCIL), were working at the Noida unit and sought directions for appointment to higher posts with increased grade pay. The court noted that the petitioners performed their services in Noida and any benefits granted would also be realized in Noida. It was emphasized that merely because the corporate office of the employer is situated in Delhi, it does not confer territorial jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254, which clarified that the location of the head office issuing a circular or policy does not determine territorial jurisdiction. The court reiterated this principle by referring to its own judgment in Dr. Mukul Gupta Vs. Management Development Institute & Anr., where similar facts led to the conclusion that the situs of the decision-maker does not confer jurisdiction if the implementation occurs elsewhere.

2. Implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report:
The petitioners argued that the Sixth Central Pay Commission Report was given in Delhi, and therefore, the Delhi High Court should have jurisdiction. The court rejected this argument, stating that the report pertained to government employees, whereas the petitioners were employees of SPMCIL, a separate entity. Even if the report were to be implemented by the corporate office in Delhi, the actual benefits would be realized in Noida. The court reiterated that the issuance of circulars or instructions from the corporate office does not confer jurisdiction, as per the Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. case.

3. Applicability of Section 27 of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985:
The petitioners contended that since Noida is within the National Capital Region (NCR), the Delhi High Court should have jurisdiction under Section 27 of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985. The court examined Section 27, which states that the provisions of the Act have an overriding effect over other laws. However, the court clarified that this provision does not alter the law regarding the cause of action for territorial jurisdiction. The Act is intended for the development of the NCR and does not imply that a cause of action arising in Noida automatically arises in Delhi.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Delhi High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,000 payable to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The court offered the petitioners the option to approach the competent court in Noida, but the petitioners insisted on a judgment from the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to comply with the order regarding the payment of costs.