EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD Vs. INDRADEO YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 in the appeal was dismissed from service of the appellant company on the ground of unauthorized absence for a period of about three months. Challenging the said order dismissing him from service, the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 1356 of 1997, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 13th September, 2003.

(2.) Apart from the merits of the order challenged in the writ petition, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the appellant as to whether this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ application in view of the fact that the entire cause of action for the writ petition had arisen beyond the territorial limits of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Considering the preliminary objection first the learned Single Judge held that having regard to the provisions of sub-clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of a could approach the High Court in its writ juris- diction (i) if the respondent against whom a relief is sought for has its place of business within the territorial limits of the concerned High Court and (ii) if the cause of action arose partly or wholly at a place within the territorial limits of the concerned High Court. Holding that sub-clause (2) of Article 226 en- abled the petitioner to choose the forum, the learned Single Judge was of the view that both the Jharkhand High Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action had arisen and the Calcutta High Court, where the Head Office of the appellant company was situated, would have jurisdiction to entertain the writ application.

(3.) On such consideration the learned Single Judge overruled the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the appellant herein with regard to jurisdiction, and, upon holding in favour of the writ petitioner on merits set aside the order dismissing the writ petitioner from service with a direction that he be notionally reinstated in service with full wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of his having attained superannuation. The learned Single Judge also directed that the writ petitioner would be deemed to have been in service and would, therefore, be entitled to be paid all retrial benefits.