CEMENT WORKERS’ MANDAL versus GLOBAL CEMENTS LTD. (HMP CEMENTS LTD.) & ORS

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 14-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
357
CEMENT WORKERS’ MANDAL
v.
GLOBAL CEMENTS LTD. (HMP CEMENTS LTD.) & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5360 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 14, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 226(2) – Territorial jurisdiction of
the High Court to entertain the petition – Held: Expression “the
cause of action, wholly or in part, arises” occurring in Art. 226(2)
has to be read in the context of s. 20(c) CPC which deals with filing
of the suit within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts
– Issue as to whether the cause of action for filing the petition,
wholly or in part, arose in the context of territorial jurisdiction of
the High Court, is to be decided keeping in view the provisions of
Art. 226(2) r/w s. 20 CPC – On facts, the part of the cause of action
as contemplated in Art. 226(2) has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court for filing the petition to claim
appropriate reliefs in relation to such dispute against the
Company – Thus, the application was maintainable in the High Court
– Order of the Single Judge is restored to the extent it decides that
the application is maintainable in the Gujarat High Court – Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 20.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Article 226(2) of the Constitution empowers
the High Court to entertain the writ petition if the cause of action
to file such writ petition against the respondents of the said writ
petition has arisen wholly or in part within the territorial
jurisdiction of ‘A’ High Court. Clause (2) further empowers a
High Court to issue any order, directions or writ as provided in
clause (1) of Article 226 in such writ petition notwithstanding
that seat of such Government or the Authority or the residence
of such person against whom the writ petition is filed does not
fall within the territories of the “A” High Court but falls in the
territories of the “B” High Court. [Paras 24, 25] [365-A-C]
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 357
  357
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
1.2 Respondent No.1-Company has its factory at Porbandar,
which is a part of State of Gujarat. The Labour Court, Junagadh,
which is also a part of State of Gujarat, entertained the dispute
between the appellant-Union and respondent No.1-Company and
passed a recovery order. One of the reliefs claimed in the petition
(SCA) pertains to non-payment of outstanding wages payable to
the workers by respondent No.1-Company. Thus, the part of the
cause of action as contemplated in Article 226 (2) has arisen within
the territorial jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court for filing the
petition (SCA) to claim appropriate reliefs in relation to such
dispute against respondent No.1-Company. [Paras 26-27]
[365-C-E]
1.3 The expression “the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises” occurring in Article 226(2) of the Constitution has to be
read in the context of Section 20(c) CPC which deals with filing
of the suit within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil
Courts. Indeed, the question as to whether the cause of action
for filing the petition, wholly or in part, arose in the context of
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and whether the Gujarat
High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s
petition (SCA) or not, is required to be decided keeping in view
the provisions of Article 226(2) read with the provisions of Section
20 CPC. [Paras 28-29] [365-F-H]
1.4 Special Civil Application (SCA) was maintainable in the
High Court inasmuch as the part of the cause of action to file
such petition did accrue to the appellant within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court. SCA was required to be
decided on merits by the High Court. The impugned order of the
Division Bench is set aside and the order of the Single Judge is
restored to the extent it decides that the SCA as maintainable in
the Gujarat High Court. The case is remanded to the Single Judge
(Writ Court) for deciding the petition(SCA) on merits strictly in
accordance with law. [Paras 30-33] [366-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 5360
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2007 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1020 of 2006.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
359
Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Ms. Kavita Bhardwaj, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Gautam Awasthi, Saurabh Trivedi, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.