Summary
The Gujarat High Court had territorial jurisdiction over the workers’ writ petition concerning unpaid wages and the proceeds from sale of their employer’s assets. The factory was in Porbandar, the recovery order was passed by the Labour Court at Junagadh and relief concerned wages owed to those workers. These facts constituted part of the cause of action in Gujarat despite the company’s registered office and the DRT proceedings being in Kolkata. The petition was remanded for decision on merits.
Issues
- Whether part of the cause of action arose in Gujarat so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on its High Court.
Provisions considered
- Article 226(2), Constitution of IndiaA High Court may entertain a writ petition where the cause of action arises wholly or partly within its territory, notwithstanding the respondent’s seat or residence elsewhere. (¶ 23–30)
- Section 20(c), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The phrase concerning cause of action in Article 226(2) was read in the context of the corresponding territorial-jurisdiction provision for civil suits. (¶¶ 23, 28–29)
Held
- The location of the factory, the Gujarat Labour Court’s recovery order and the relief for unpaid wages established that part of the cause of action arose within Gujarat. The Division Bench wrongly dismissed the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. (¶ 26–32)
- Only territorial jurisdiction was decided. The writ court had to determine the merits independently of the observations of the Division Bench and Supreme Court, preferably within six months. (¶ 31–34)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench order set aside and Single Judge’s maintainability ruling restored. Petition remanded to the Single Judge for decision on merits.