Territorial jurisdiction in industrial disputes turns on where termination takes effect and where part of the cause of action arises.

Territorial jurisdiction for an industrial dispute reference depends on where a material part of the cause of action arises. The text explains that the termination dispute had a direct nexus with the transfer orders, and that service of the termination orders at Calcutta was legally significant because termination takes effect on communication. On that basis, a part of the cause of action arose in West Bengal, giving the State a sufficient territorial connection to make the reference. It also notes that the existence of another possible forum does not by itself defeat jurisdiction, and that territorial objections are technical unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State of West Bengal was the appropriate Government to make the industrial dispute reference where the workmen were transferred outside West Bengal but the termination orders were served at Calcutta, and whether the territorial jurisdiction objection could defeat the reference.

Analysis: The dispute referred for adjudication concerned the termination of service, and the transfer orders were not themselves the subject of the reference. Even so, the termination was stated to have followed the workmen's non-compliance with the transfer orders, so the transfer had a direct nexus with the termination. The termination orders were served at Calcutta, and communication of such orders was legally significant because termination takes effect upon communication. On that basis, a part of the cause of action arose within West Bengal and the State had the requisite territorial connection for making the reference. The Court also noted that where a dispute substantially arises within the territory of a State, the existence of another possible forum does not by itself negate jurisdiction. Reliance on territorial objection was further weakened by the principle that objections of this kind are technical and, absent prejudice or failure of justice, do not warrant upsetting a decision on merits.

Conclusion: The State of West Bengal was the appropriate Government to make the reference, and the High Court was wrong in setting aside the award on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.

---