Allahabad High Court
Bharat Electronics Limited ... vs Bharat Electronics Theka Asthai ... on 24 November, 2014
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62252 of 2014
Petitioner :- Bharat Electronics Limited Bharat Nagar
Respondent :- Bharat Electronics Theka Asthai Employee Union And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Padia
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:-
"(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.09.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labout Court No.2, Karkarduma Court, Delhi/respondent no.2(Annexure No.18 to the writ petition).
(b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.09.2013 issued by the respondent no.3 (Annexure No.20 to the writ petition).
(c) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to pas appropriate orders on the application dated 14.07.2014 (Annexure No.17 to the writ petition) filed on behalf of the petitioner/management after taking into consideration the contents made in the said application;
(d) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to pas appropriate orders on the representation/objections made by the petitioner dated 03.08.2013 (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition) filed on behalf of the petitioner/management after taking into consideration the contents made in the said application;
(e) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case; and
(f) award cost of the petition to be paid to the petitioner."
Court has asked the specific query regarding maintainability of the present with petitioner on the ground that impugned order had been passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labout Court No.2, Karkarduma Court, Delhi/respondent no.2, and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
In the support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance on the judgment dated 12th April, 2013 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 1851 of 2013(Bharat Electronic Technical Cadre Association & ANR Vs. Union of India & ORS), and the order dated 21st May 2013 passed in LPA 352 of 2013, in the said case. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein below:-
"13. A reference to the aforesaid letter shows that the Ministry has only forwarded a legal notice received by BEL Technical Cadre Association of the respondent no.3 and has requested for directions on the issue of pay-fixation. The last line of this letter refers to the Department of Defence Production being the administrative Department of Bharat Electronics Ltd./respondent no.3 is requested to take actions in terms of the DPE guidelines. In my opinion, even this letter cannot confer territorial jurisdiction because ultimately, and as stated above, the issue is of implementation of the relevant circulars, and which implementation will necessarily have to be done by the employer-respondent no.3 and which implementation will be done where the respondent no.3 is situated i.e at Bangalore or at Ghaziabad where the petitioners are working for the respondent no.3. I may note that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Swaika Properties & Anr. (1985) 3 SCC 217 has held that merely serving of a legal notice at a particular place will not confer territorial jurisdiction on that Court where notice is served.
14. In view of the above, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction and the writ petition is therefore dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to file the appropriate proceedings in the competent Court having territorial jurisdiction.
15. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant. Writ jurisdiction is one of discretionary remedy. We may point out that the appellant is an association having its office at Ghaziabad, U.P. Outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The order impugned in the Writ Petition was also passed by Chairman-Cum Managing Director of BEL, Bangalore. Both the appellant as well as the respondents are outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Nevertheless, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the order dated 27.4.2009 passed by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, partial cause of action has arisen here. In our opinion, though the learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that in the event any partial cause of action arises, this court would have jurisdiction to entertain the petition, on the given set of facts we are not inclined to accept the said submission for the simple reason that the appellant seeks to rely upon the order dated 27.4.2009 of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India to assail the order impugned in the writ petition. The approach of this court would have been different if the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence was questioned before this court and this is not the case before us. Moreover, the writ jurisdiction is one of discretionary remedy. Having regard to the fact that the order impugned in the writ petition has been passed by the Charmin-cum-Managing Director, BEL, Bangalore and the appellant Association is also at Ghaziabad, U.P., it would be advisable to the appellant to challenge the said order either at Karnataka High Court or Allahabad High Court. For our own reason, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The decision of the learned Single Judge on territorial jurisdiction, in matters like this, is left open. Appeal is disposed of accordingly."
Learned counsel for the petitioner apprised to the Court that judgment and order dated 21.05.2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA 352 of 2013 had been assailed by means of filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s). 23116 of 2013 (Bharat Electronic Technical Cadre Association & ANR Vs. Union of India & ORS) before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 05.08.2013 had dismissed the said Special Leave to Appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that admittedly the association having its office at Ghaziabad U.P., therefore, this writ petition is being maintainable before this Court on the ground that once the issue of territorial jurisdiction has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and same has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then the present writ petition can not be dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
Matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to respondents. Steps may be taken within a week, returnable at an early date. The respondents are allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List this matter after five weeks.
Order Date :- 24.11.2014
VKG
