MANGALA A.G. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a chartered accountant, who joined the service of the second respondent company on 16/8/2010, as Finance Manager. On 10/5/2017, she was posted at the 4th respondent unit of the company at Rasayani, Navi Mumbai as Deputy General Manager (Finance). She was given the additional charge of the 5th respondent Udyogamandal Unit, by Ext.P3 document, dtd. 1/6/2020. While so, due to the spread of pandemic COVID 19 in the State of Maharashtra, she was permitted to work from her home at Panvel in Mumbai. Later, due to the increase in the number of COVID cases, petitioner left Maharashtra, came to her native place at Ernakulam and continued to work from home. She resigned her job on 31/10/2020. Claiming that petitioner was not paid one month's salary and the terminal benefits, she has approached this Court seeking reliefs.

(2.) Respondents 2 to 5 appeared and raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not legally sustainable in so far as the petitioner was posted at Navi Mumbai, from where she worked, beyond this Court's jurisdiction. This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. Ms.Pooja Menon, learned Counsel for the respondent/company, vehemently contended that, petitioner was not transferred out of her office at Navi Mumbai. Learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner remained in the pay roll of the company at Rasayani Unit at Navi Mumbai and was liable to report to that office. She reported online for duty at Navi Mumbai office and received instructions from that office. Her work report was submitted to the office at Navi Mumbai. Considering the peculiar circumstances arising out of the COVID pandemic, as a concession, she was permitted to work from home. Though she worked remotely from home, she continued to be in the pay rolls of the 4th respondent at Navi Mumbai. Even her work from home at Ernakulam, can only be considered as a notional extension of her work place. Answering this, Mr.R.Sreehari, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, she was permitted to work from home at Ernakulam and also held the additional charge of the Unit at Ernakulam, and thereby this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the matter.

(3.) In the light of the rival contentions, the maintainability of the writ petition was heard as a preliminary issue.