Writ Petition Dismissed Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction in Director's Termination Case

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's contractual services as Director with Goa Shipyard Ltd. It held that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the termination order was communicated to the petitioner in Goa, where part of the cause of action arose. The court emphasized the necessity of communication for an order to be legally effective, distinguishing the case from prior judgments. The petitioner was advised to seek recourse in a court with proper territorial jurisdiction.

---

---

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.

---