EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. & ORS. versus KALYAN BANERJEE

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 920 · Decided: 04-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 920 
A 
EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. & ORS. 
II. 
'( 
KALYAN BANERJEE 
(Civil Appeal No. 1736 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 4, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
,,. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226(2) - Territorial 
Jurisdiction -· Entire cause of action arising in Mugma Area in 
c State of Jharkhand - Writ petition by employee challenging 
his termination before Calcutta High Court - Maintainability 
of - Held: Not maintainable - Company having Head Office 
in the State of West Bengal would not by itself confer any 
;urisdiction upon Calcutta High Court - Head office had 
D nothing to do with the order of punishment against employee. 
Words and Phrases: Cause of action - Meaning of - In 
, 
the context of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
E appeal was whether the Calcutta High Court within whose 
territorial limits the Head Office of the Company was 
situated, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ 
application of the employee challenging his termination 
when the employee was appointed with the Company at 
F 
Mugma Area, in Jharkhand and also his services were 
'... 
terminated at that place. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
r 
HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction to issue a writ of or in the 
nature of mandamus is conferred upon the High Court 
G under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Article 226(2), 
however, provides that if cause of action had arisen in 
more than one court, any of the courts where part of cause 
of action arises will have jurisdiction to entertain the writ 
petition. (Para 6) [924-F, G] 
H 
920 
EAStERN COALFIELDS LTD. & ORS. v. 
921 
KALYAN BANERJEE 
't 
1.2 'Cause of action', for the purpose of Article 226(2) A 
of the Constitution of India, for all intent and purport, must 
be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under 
section 20(c) CPC. It means a bundle of facts which are 
required to be proved. The entire bundle of facts pleaded, 
however, need not constitute a cause of action as what is B 
necessary to be proved is material facts whereupon a writ 
·, 
"" 
petition can be allowed. (Para 7) [924-G, H; 925-A] 
1.3 In view of the decision of the Division Bench of 
the Calcutta High Court that the entire cause of action 
arose in Mugma Area within the State of Jharkhand, it is c 
opined that only because the Head Office of the appellant-
company was situated in the State of West Bengal, the 
same by itself will not confer any jurisdiction upon the 
Calcutta High Court, particularly when the Head Office had 
nothing to do with the order of punishment passed D 
against the respondent. (Para 11) [928-C, D] 
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Another 
(2004) 6 SCC 254; Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate 
Tribunal AIR 1976 SC 331; UP Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari 
E 
Parishad, Lucknow vs. State of UP and others (1995) 4 SCC 
738; Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and 
Others (2006) 3 SCC 658; Om Prakash Srivastava v Union of 
India and Anr (2006) 6 SCC 207; Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' 
':: 
Assn. (Direct Recruit) and Others v. State of UP and Others 
(2006) 10 sec 346 - referred to 
F 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1736 
of 2008. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 25/11 /2005 of 
the High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta in R.V.W. No. 1709/2003 G 
in W.P. No. 19934 (W) /1999. 
-,, 
Anip Sachthey for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court.was delivered by 
H 
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 3 S.C.R. 
A· 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Respondent was an employee of Eastern Coal Fields 
Limited, Appellant No. 1 herein in the Mug ma Area, in the district 
of Dhanbad, Jharkhand. The General Manager of the area, 
whose office is also situated at Mugma was his appointing and 
B disciplinary authority. The services of the respondent were 
terminated at Mugma. He filed a writ application before the 
Calcutta High Court. As he was serving in the Mug ma Area and 
the office of the General Manager was situated at Mug ma which 
is in the State of Jharkhand, a preliminary objection was raised 
C in regard to the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. In support 
of the said objection, reliance was placed upon a decision of a 
learned Single Judge in N.N. Singh v. Coal India Limitecl [C.O. 
No. 5869 (W) of 1994]. 
3. The learned Single Judge, however, disagreed with the 
D said view and referred the matter to the Division Bench. The 
Division B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.