Hifzur Rahman And Others vs Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4967 Cal

 10&11
22.09.2021
   TN

                                 W.P.C.T. No. 152 of 2019
                                   IA No: CAN 1 of 2020
                                (Old No: CAN 1389 of 2020)

                                 Hifzur Rahman and others
                                           Vs.
                                  Union of India and others

                                           With

                                    W.P.C.T. No.151 of 2019
                                      IA No: CAN 1 of 2020
                                   (Old No: CAN 1388 of 2020)

                                     Ramjit Singh and others
                                             Vs.
                                     Union of India and others


                   Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya,
                   Mr. Saikat Chatterjee,
                   Mr. Raju Bhattacharyya
                                                .... for the petitioners

                   Mr. Sundarananda Pal,
                   Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Pal,
                   Mr. Bandhu Brata Bhula
                                                  .... for the respondents

Liberty is granted to the learned Advocate-on-

record for the respondents to amend the back-sheet and

the cause-title of the affidavits-in-opposition filed in court

today, thereby correcting the erroneous statement that

those are replies, and the same be kept on record.

The present challenge has been directed against an

order passed by the Kolkata Central Administrative

Tribunal whereby the tribunal held that it did not have

the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the original

application of the writ petitioners.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners argues that one of the vital components of the

bundle of facts, which comprised the cause of action for

the original application before the tribunal, is a copy of

the minutes of a meeting dated November 23, 2015,

which indicated that the same was held in Kolkata, that

too, pursuant to an order dated November 15, 2015 by a

Division Bench of this High Court in W.P.C.T. No.207 of

2015.

It is pointed out that, at the relevant point of time

when the application was taken out before the tribunal,

the Head Office of SAIL was situated in Kolkata.

Learned senior counsel further argues that, taking

as a whole the bundle of facts which comprises the cause

of action of the proceeding, a part of the cause of action,

at least, arose in Kolkata, as indicated above. As such,

the Kolkata Tribunal had territorial jurisdiction to decide

the matter.

Learned counsel relies on the following judgments

in support of his contentions, to elaborate the meaning of

cause of action in the light of Section 20 (c) of the Code of

Civil Procedure:

(i) (2014) 9 SCC 329 (Nawal Kishore Sharma vs.

Union of India & Ors.)

(ii) (2010) 1 SCC 456 ( Rajendran Chingaravelu

vs. R.K. Mishra, AC of IT & Ors.)

Learned senior counsel appearing for the

respondents argues that the primary cause of action of

the proceeding before the tribunal was a challenge to the

Memorandum dated November 4, 2016, which is annexed

at page-206A of the instant writ petition.

It is submitted that not only were the present

petitioners employees of the Colliery Division in

Chasnalla, Bihar, they retired from the same place and

the entire eligibility of the arrears as claimed by the

petitioners is in respect of work done within the territorial

jurisdiction of the Dhanbad tribunal.

Learned counsel places reliance on Eastern

Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee, reported at

(2008) 3 SCC 456, in order to explain the connotation of

"cause of action".

It is seen from the reliefs claimed in the original

application filed before the tribunal that the primary relief

was relief (b), which prayed for a direction to set aside

and/or quash and/or cancel the impugned Circular

dated November 04, 2016 issued by the Respondent

Authority.

The subsequent reliefs were consequential and

ancillary to the primary relief, since,the latter reliefs were

dependent on the outcome of the decision on relief (b).

To appreciate in proper light the oft-used

expression "bundle of facts", which gives rise to a cause

of action, we have to go one step further in order to

analyze the connotation of the expression "cause of

action" itself. A cause for any legal action can only arise

when a legal right of the plaintiff/applicant is infringed.

Whatever facts comprise of such infringement would

comprise the bundle of facts which, in turn, becomes the

cause of action for the suit. There may be a chain of

events which lead to such infringement, which gave rise

to the concept of cause of action being a bundle of facts.

However, the plaint/original application also has to

necessarily plead the basis on which the

plaintiff/applicant was conferred the legal right, which

was alleged to be infringed. Even the statement of the

mode of conferment of legal right of the plaintiff/applicant

cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as a

part of the cause of action, since the same is the plinth

upon which the plaintiff/applicant bases her/his right in

order to allege the subsequent infringement which are

sought to be remedied by way of the reliefs sought in the

proceeding.

In the present case, even if a co-ordinate Bench of

this court had assumed jurisdiction in deciding a

previous application relating to the payment of arrears of

the petitioners, the same was an event prior to the cause

of action having arisen in respect of the present litigation.

Rather, the order dated November 15, 2015 finds a

mention in the minutes dated November 23, 2015

(annexed at page-205 of the writ petition), which,

according to the petitioners, conferred a legal right on the

petitioners which was infringed by the Memorandum

dated November 4, 2016. However, the latter was issued

from Chasnalla, which falls within the jurisdiction of the

State of Bihar and not West Bengal.

As such, since the entitlement of the petitioners

regarding the claim of arrear wages made by them as well

as the connected events, which comprise the cause of

action, arose entirely within the territorial jurisdiction of

Chasnalla, Bihar, mere reference to the minutes dated

November 23, 2015 or anything conferring right on the

petitioners cannot be considered even to be a part of the

cause of action for the purpose of ascertaining whether

the tribunal had territorial jurisdiction.

In such view of the matter, W.P.C.T. No.151 of

2019 along with W.P.C.T. No.152 of 2019 are dismissed

on contest, by affirming the order of the tribunal holding

that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the

claim of the petitioners.

IA No: CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No: CAN 1388 of 2020)

and CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No: CAN 1389 of 2020) are

disposed of accordingly.

However, it is made clear that the merits of the

claims of the petitioners have not been gone into at all by

this court and/or the tribunal and the observations made

herein and in the impugned order shall not influence any

competent tribunal having territorial jurisdiction to take

up such claim while adjudicating the matter, if initiated

by the petitioners before the appropriate tribunal having

territorial jurisdiction in the matter.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be made available to the parties upon

compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Jay Sengupta, J.)