TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 929
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ground of absenteeism of the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation to the General Manager, Chanch Victoria area; but he received a reply from the Agent of the colliery rejecting the petitioner's prayer for reinstatement. By the present petition the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal on various grounds. The respondents have taken a point of the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition as a preliminary point of objection about the entertainability of the petition. This point as such was heard as a preliminary point and the affidavit filed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are restricted to the question of the preliminary objection alone. 2. The respondents state that a charge-sheet was issued by the Agent of Basantimata Colliery which is in the state of Jharkhand. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered and the Agent being the disciplinary authority was not satisfied and in the regular departmental proceeding that was commenced, continued and concluded at the Basantimata Colliery which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Agent had dismissed the petitioner from service. The respondents h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the state of Jharkhand but the working place of the project is in Bengal and according to the petitioner the jurisdiction of this Court is thus, a concurrent one with that of the Jharkhand High Court. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Company Limited (2010) 1 SCC 135 has held, in the context of section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, mat it is well-settled that the expression 'cause of action' means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In that case the fire broke out at Ambala. The insurance policy was taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also. Jeat Ambala. As such no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh. The Supreme Court had approved the view taken by this Court in the case of IFB Automotive Seating and System Limited v. Union of India AIR 2003 Cal 80 in that case the division bench of this Court had held that the relief as prayed for could not be granted by this Court. One of the arguments in that case made by the Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical (Supra), was that one of the branch offices was at Chandigarh and hence complaint could have been filed in Cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case the respondent before the Supreme Court was an employee of the Eastern Coal Fields Limited in Mugma area in the district of Dhanbad. The General Manager of the area whose office was also situated there was his appointing and disciplinary authority. The services of the respondents were terminated at Mugma. He filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. A preliminary objection was raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The Division Bench by a judgment and order held that the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition but subsequently on an application for review the Division Bench had changed its views and held that an employee challenging an order of dismissal cannot get an effective order unless the employer is made party to the litigation and in mat case the Eastern Coal Fields Limited having its registered office in the district of Burdwan was a necessary party. The High Court had held that even if the cause of action arose outside the territorial limits of the High Court, High Court could still entertain a writ petition if the persons sought to be bound by the order is stationed within the territorial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner it appears that he has prayed for an order directing the respondents to set aside the order of dismissal served upon him and restraining the respondents from taking any step in furtherance thereof. He has also prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet and the ex parte enquiry proceedings. Thus one thing is clear that all the directions he had prayed for is with regard to the events occurring within the state of Jharkhand. Whether the respondent No. 2 had any colliery in West Bengal is not material. Merely because the appointment letter was issued from the state of West Bengal will not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the writ petition. We have seen that the Supreme Court and this Court has repeatedly stressed that every fact pleaded in the petition will not constitute part of cause of action unless the same has any nexus with the reliefs sought for. The petitioner has made a point mat the office of the appellate authority has its area office within the province of West Bengal is inconsequential inasmuch as the petitioner is not challenging the order of the appellate authority and the appellate authority also has their area office within this state. The petitio....