Delhi High Court
Shri Manzoor-Ul-Haq vs Bombay Mercantile Co-Operative ... on 31 August, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 12992/2006
% Date of Decision: 31st August, 2009
# SHRI MANZOOR-UL-HAQ
..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate.
VERSUS
$ BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS.
.....RESPONDENTS
^ Through: Mr. Ataul Haque for respondents No. 1
& 3.
Mr. R.C. Chawla & Ms. Ranjana Tripathi
for respondent No. 2.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?YES
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
The petitioner was employed with respondent No. 1 bank at the
time of termination of his services w.e.f. 11.06.2005. At that time, he was
posted with respondent No. 1 bank at Jaipur. He had an amount of
Rs.6,94,689.85 paise to his credit on account of provident fund dues at
the time his services were terminated. Respondent No. 1 bank paid him
an amount of Rs.2,45,357.65 paise on account of provident fund dues
after adjusting an amount of Rs.4,49,332.20 paise under various heads
including an amount of Rs.3,60,084.55 paise outstanding against him in
the Housing Loan Account. This payment of Rs.2,45,357.65 paise on
account of provident fund dues was made by respondent No. 1 bank to
the petitioner pursuant to a letter dated 10.10.2005 sent by respondent
No. 1 bank from Mumbai to its branch office at Delhi, which is at page 25
of the paper book.
2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of an
appropriate writ/directions against respondent No. 3 that it should
release his entire provident fund withheld by it under various heads as
mentioned in the letter of respondent No. 1 bank at page 25 of the paper
book because according to the petitioner, no deduction could have been
made from the provident fund dues of the petitioner in view of provisions
contained in Section 10 of the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Mr. Ataul Haque learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 3 has raised a preliminary
objection to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground
of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to hear and entertain the present
writ petition. The argument of Mr. Ataul Haque learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 3 is that this Court has no jurisdiction to
hear the present petition because the petitioner at the time cause of
action accrued to him for getting back his provident fund consequent
upon his termination from respondent No. 1 bank arose to him at Jaipur
where he was posted at the relevant time.
3 Per contra, Mr. P.S. Rana learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner contends that since the housing loan which has been
adjusted from the provident fund dues of the petitioner was disbursed to
the petitioner and also because the pay order of Rs.2,45,357.65 paise on
account of provident fund dues was delivered to him at Delhi, this Court
is competent to hear and decide the present writ petition.
4 The only short question from the above rival submissions made by
counsel for parties that arises for consideration of this Court is where
cause of action arose to the petitioner to ask for payment of provident
fund dues payable to him on termination of his services by respondent
No. 1 bank w.e.f. 11.06.2005.
5 Mr. Rana learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
does not dispute that the petitioner at the time his services were
terminated by respondent No. 1 bank was posted at Jaipur. In view of this
admission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the
opinion that cause of action for getting the provident fund dues accrued
to the petitioner at Jaipur from where his services were terminated. The
disbursement of loan or delivery of the pay order of part provident fund
in the jurisdiction of this Court does not confer any jurisdiction on this
Court to direct respondents No. 1 & 3 to pay the portion of the provident
fund allegedly illegally deducted by them from the provident fund that
was payable to him at the time of termination of his services. It may be
noted that even the letter dated 10.10.2005 (at page 25 of the paper
book) on which reliance is placed by the petitioner's learned counsel was
issued by respondent No. 1 bank from Mumbai and not from Delhi. Since
the petitioner was posted at Jaipur at the time of termination of his
services, this Court is not competent to hear the present petition with
regard to a cause of action that arose to the petitioner outside the
jurisdiction of this Court.
6 For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed for want of
territorial jurisdiction, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate
proceedings before the Court of competent jurisdiction for vindication of
his grievance raised by him in the present writ petition.
AUGUST 31, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'A'
