Territorial writ jurisdiction and dearness allowance award upheld where part of the cause of action arose in Delhi.

Delhi HC held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be exercised because part of the cause of action arose in Delhi: the reference was made there, the award was published there, the undertaking had substantial operations there, and enforceability lay through the Central Government in Delhi. On merits, the industrial award granting dearness allowance was not quashed, as the employer did not establish a legally material inability to bear the burden and the allowance had already been paid at a higher rate. The challenge to the award was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petition challenging the award and its publication by the Central Government at Delhi. (ii) Whether the impugned award granting dearness allowance was liable to be quashed on the merits, including on the ground of the management's financial inability and the contention that the allowance could not become a condition of service.

Issue (i): Whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petition challenging the award and its publication by the Central Government at Delhi.

Analysis: Part of the cause of action arose within Delhi because the reference was made at Delhi, the award was published at Delhi, the undertaking had its main terminus and substantial workmen at Shahdara within Delhi, and the award was enforceable through the Central Government at Delhi. Under Article 226(1-A), a High Court may exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territory, even if the authority is elsewhere.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned award granting dearness allowance was liable to be quashed on the merits, including on the ground of the management's financial inability and the contention that the allowance could not become a condition of service.

Analysis: The award proceeded on the footing that the existing dearness allowance had become a term of service, and the challenge failed in light of the principle that an industrial award continues to operate as a contractual term until displaced by a fresh contract or adjudication. The financial position of the undertaking was not shown to be such as to make the award unsustainable, and the settled principles on dearness allowance require consideration of the employer's ability to bear the burden, but do not justify interference where no such inability is established. The allowance had already been paid at a rate higher than the award, which reinforced the absence of a case for interference.

Conclusion: The award was not liable to be quashed, and the challenge failed on merits.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable but disclosed no ground for interference with the industrial award, so the challenge to the award was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition may be entertained where part of the cause of action arises within the High Court's territorial limits, and an industrial award on dearness allowance will not be quashed unless the employer shows a legally material inability to bear the burden or other sustainable ground for interference.

---