Uma Sharma And Ors vs Iaf Educational And Cultural ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 6606 Del

$~3
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 19th November, 2012

+           W.P.(C) 6889/2012 & CM No.17911/2012

UMA SHARMA AND ORS                                           ..... Petitioners
                Through:                Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. R.N. Singh and
                                        Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocates.

                               Versus

IAF EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY
AND ORS                                       ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra with Mr. Aashish
                          Gupta, Advocates for R-3 & 4.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners were appointed by the respondent No.2 on various dates between 19.04.1993 to 27.11.2001 and were confirmed on various dates between 31.07.1998 to 22.05.2008.

2. The petitioners are resident of Faridabad, Haryana and they were working with the respondent no.2 at Faridabad, Haryana and their services were terminated at Faridabad, Haryana. The said decision was communicated by the respondent no.2 to the petitioners at Faridabad, Haryana.

3. The respondent No.2 initially issued termination-cum-show cause notice dated 28.12.2011 against which the petitioners approached the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, Haryana vide Civil Suit No.52/2012

registered on 01.03.2012 for permanent injunction with consequent relief of mandatory injunction. The learned Court mentioned above opined that the respondents were competent to take a decision for closing the School on account of financial loss where the petitioners were employed as teachers. It is further recorded that after closing of the School, the services of the petitioners are no more required by the respondent No.2. Therefore, there was no occasion shown by the petitioners that respondents had violated any rule and regulation by issuing the termination-cum-show cause notice to them.

4. The Court opined that in view of the above, no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners was made out and no balance of convenience lies in their favour.

5. However, the respondent No.2 was directed to accommodate the petitioners in the order of their seniority in any other School which is run by the respondent no.2 under their management as and when any vacancy arises.

6. It was further directed that the respondents should ensure the compliance of the order in future. It is true that the Court has not given an expression or opinion on the merit of the case.

7. Mr. R.V. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a case decided by the Constitution Bench of this Court titled Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India 2011 AIR (Del) 174, where the balance of convenience has been discussed in para 31 which is as under:

"31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the existence of more

appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just adjudication of the controversy and such other ancillary aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken note of. Be it noted, the Apex Court has clearly stated in the cases of Kusum Ingots (supra), Moaraf Hossain Khan (supra) and Ambica Industries (supra) about the applicability of the doctrine of forum conveniens while opining that arising of a part of cause of action would entitle the High Court to entertain the writ petition as maintainable."

8. The Constitution Bench has opined in para 33 (b) & (e) as under:

"33....

(b) Even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, a writ petition would be maintainable before this Court, however, the cause of action has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd. (supra). .......

(e) The finding that the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a mala fide manner is too restricted / constricted as the exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground of mala fide alone."

9. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, further submits that though the petitioners are resident of Faridabad, Haryana, they were working at Faridabad, their services were terminated at Faridabad, however, the approval for termination of the petitioners has come from the office of the respondent no.2 at Delhi. Therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction.

10. I note that there is no cause of action arose in Delhi. The petitioners were working at Faridabad, their services were terminated at Faridabad and they initially approached the Civil Court at Faridabad. Not even partly the

cause of action arose at Delhi. The ratio of Sterling Agro Industries Ltd.(supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

11. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the view that in the instant case the cause of action did not arise under the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi's Court.

12. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

13. No orders as to costs.

SURESH KAIT, J.

NOVEMBER 19, 2012 Bs/RS