TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent were terminated at Mugma. He filed a writ application before the Calcutta High Court. As he was serving in the Mugma area and the office of the genetal manger was situated at Mugma which is in the State of Jharkhand a preliminary objection was raised in regard to the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. In support of the said objection, reliance was placed upon a decision of a learned single judge in N. N. Singh v. Coal India Ltd. (C O. No. 5869(W) of 1994). 3. The learned single judge, however, disagreed with the said view and referred the matter to the Division Bench the Division Bench by a judgment and order March 26, 2003 opined that the Calcutta High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iction of the Calcutta High Court then the High Court at Calcutta will have jurisdiction to decide the matter. Simply because a head office of the company is within the territorial limits of the Calcutta High Court, that will not give jurisdiction to the Calcutta High Court unless cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court." 4. A review application was filed thereagainst. By reason of the impugned judgment dated November 25, 2005, the said review application has been allowed holding that the Division Bench had not taken into consideration two other decisions of the Division Benches of the said court, viz., Ram Brich Muchi v. Coal India Ltd. (A. P. O. T. No. 343 of 2002) and Eastern Coal Fields Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d its attention to the cause of action of the present writ application but totally ignored the fact that the employer, the Government company, has its registered office within the district of Burdwan and consequently the question whether cause of action had really arisen within the territorial limit of this court was immaterial." 5. Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that it is not a case where sanction of the corporate office or head office was required to be taken. The entire cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court, the Calcutta High Court could not have exercised any jurisdiction in the matter. 6. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of or in the natu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....95] 4 SCC 738, to hold (page 263 of [2004] 6 SCC). See page 679 of 120 Comp Cas : "26. The view taken by this court in U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad [1995] 4 SCC 738, that the situs of issue of an order or notification by the Government would come within the meaning of the expression 'cases arising' in clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order is not a correct view of law for the reason hereafter stated and to that extent the said decision is overruled. In fact, a legislation, it is trite, is not confined to a statute enacted by Parliament or the legislature of a State, which would include delegated legislation and subordinate legislation or an executive order made by the Union of India, State or any other statutory autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06] 130 Comp. Cas. 390, 401 (SC) stating (page 669) : "26. In Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [2004] 6 SCC 254 [2004] 120 Comp. Cas. 672 (SC), a three-judge Bench of this court clearly held that with a view to determine the jurisdiction of one High Court vis-a-vis the other, the facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be made and the facts which have nothing to do therewith cannot give rise to a cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction of a court. In that case it was clearly held that only because the High Court within whose jurisdiction a legislation is passed, it would not have the sole territorial jurisdiction but all the High Courts where cause of action arises, will have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- None of the direct recruits who would be directly affected by the order were made parries to the writ petition. There fore, the High Court did not have the benefit of competing arguments in the matter. Even though, the Principal Secretary of the State or Uttaranchal was made a party, the said party was never served. The only respondent which was heard was the State of U. P., which had no stake in the matter at all since all of the writ petitioners before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court were employees of the State of Uttaranchal on the relevant date. It is. therefore, evident that the relevant material was not placed before the Allahabad High Court for the purpose of deciding the writ petition. Accordingly, the permission had....