MUKUL GUPTA Vs. MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO doubt, courts at Delhi seem to be a favoured destination of certain litigants and lawyers, however, this favoured destination if the same is approached, has necessarily to be only if whole or part of the cause of action arises as per Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India for the writ petition to be filed before this Court. The only other alternative as per which this Court can entertain the writ petition is, even if the cause of action, whole or part does not arise within the jurisdiction of this Court, provided the authorities against which the writ has to be enforced are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because certain instructions or executive orders or similar aspects are passed at the registered or any other office of the employer in Delhi, this Court on that basis would not have territorial jurisdiction unless and until the said executive instruction or order has also to be implemented at Delhi. With this preface let us turn to the facts of the present case.

(2.) PETITIONER is admittedly residing in Gurgaon, Haryana. Petitioner is employed with the respondent no.1 viz Management Development Institute (MDI) at its office at Gurgaon. Petitioner has served i.e rendered services with the Management Development Institute (MDI) at Gurgaon. Petitioner has never worked with the employer -Management Development Institute (MDI) at Delhi. In this writ petition, the only prayer which is claimed is for quashing of the impugned termination letter dated 28.10.2014 by which the services of the petitioner as Director of the respondent no.1 were terminated, and admittedly, even this letter has been issued by the respondent no.1 from its Gurgaon office and it has been issued to the petitioner at his Gurgaon address.

(3.) I have had an occasion to consider the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of Courts for filing of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in W.P.(C) No. 1851/2013 titled as Bharat Electronic Technical Cadre Association and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. decided on 12.4.2013 and in which judgment, I have referred to the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee, 2008 3 SCC 456 and Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2004 6 SCC 254. The relevant paras of the judgment have been referred to show that every fact is not part of the cause of action but only those facts which are co -relatable to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, and are therefore an essential part of the cause of action, would be facts which if arise within the jurisdiction of this Court, would give territorial jurisdiction to this Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. is referred to and which states that merely because a registered office of the employer is situated at Delhi, and which issues an executive order or instruction, would not confer territorial jurisdiction of this Court only because of the situs of the office of the maker thereof.