Madhya Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs General Secretary on 22 February, 2022
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 22nd OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 114 of 2017
Between:-
UNION OF INDIA
THR. GENERAL MANAGER
1. SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY
G.M. COMPLEX
BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
SR. D.E.E.
(OP) S.E.C.RAILWAY
2. OPP DRM BUILDING
BILASPUR DIVISION
(CHHATTISGARH)
CHIEF CREW CONTROLLER
3. S.E.C.RAILWAY
BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI N. P. S. RUPRAH, ADVOCATE )
AND
GENERAL SECRETARY
SCEWASTAMB UNION H.NO. 145/2,
1. KESHAR AWAS, SMRITI VAN,
TURNING POINT RAJKISHORE NAGAR,
BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
GANISH KUMAR
S/O LATE SANT KUMAR PRADHAN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
2.
R/O TAAR BHAR,
NEAR FCI CHOWK,
(CHHATTISGARH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 ) (O R D E R ) 22/02/2022 Petitioner has filed this petition challenging impugned order dated 25.4.2017 by which C.G.I.T Jabalpur has set aside order of reversion of respondent no.2 from the post of Loco Pilot (Goods) to the post of Loco Pilot (Shunting) for a period of three years without cumulative effect and had 2 MP No.114/2017 ordered punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect.
2. Respondent no.2 had filed an application I.A No.7200/2021 and made a prayer for dismissal of Misc. Petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that C.G.I.T, Jabalpur is having territorial jurisdiction over State of Chattisgarh as well as State of M.P.. Impugned award has been passed by C.G.I.T Jabalpur. Passing of award by C.G.I.T Jabalpur will not give jurisdiction of High Court of M.P. as original cause of action has arisen in State of Chattisgarh. Merely passing of order by C.G.I.T Jabalpur will not give cause of action to entertain Misc. Petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India at Jabalpur.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that C.G.I.T Jabalpur is located within territorial jurisdiction of High Court of M.P., therefore, High Court at Jabalpur has jurisdiction to consider and entertain Misc. petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India against award passed by C.G.I.T Jabalpur.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners as well as respondents had placed reliance on judgment reported in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and Another, (2004) 6 SCC 254; Vishnu Agrawal and another vs. State of 3 MP No.114/2017 M.P and others, 2009 SCC Online MP 226; Suresh Sharma vs. Punjab and Sindh Bank, Indore and Others, 2010 SCC OnLine MP 59, Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC 769 and Vishnu Agrawal and another vs. State of M.P and others, 2009 (3) MPLJ 39.
6. In the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. (supra) question of territorial jurisdiction in writ petition filed under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India was considered. In Para 25 of said judgment it was held as under:-
"25. The said decision is an authority for the proposition that the place from where an appellate order or a revisional order is passed may give rise to a part of cause of action although the original order was at a place outside the said area. When a part of the cause of action arises within one or the other High Court, it will be for the petitioner to choose his forum."
7. In the case of Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC 769, the Apex Court in paras 17, 29, 39 to 42 has held as under:-
"17. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also Clause (2) of Article 226 thereof, the High Court would exercise its discretionary jurisdiction as also power to issue writ of certiorari in respect of the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts within its territorial jurisdiction or if any cause of action has arisen therewithin but the same tests cannot be applied when the appellate court exercises a jurisdiction over Tribunal 4 MP No.114/2017 situated in more than one State. In such a situation, in our opinion, the High Court situated in the State where the first court is located should be considered to be the appropriate appellate authority. Code of Civil Procedure did not contemplate such a situation. It provides for jurisdiction of each court. Even a District Judge must exercise its jurisdiction only within the territorial limits of a State. It is inconceivable under the Code of Civil Procedure that the jurisdiction of the District Court would be exercisable beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the District, save and except in such matters where the law specifically provides therefor.
18. to 28. xxx xxx xxx
29. The decisions operating in the field, which have been taken note of in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra), would clearly go to show how the situs doctrine had been given a go-bye by making constitutional amendments. At one point of time writ petitions against the Union of India were being filed only before the Punjab & Haryana High Court as the said Court exercised territorial jurisdiction over Delhi, which was the seat of the Central Government. Experiencing difficulties, clause 1A of Article 226 was introduced. The Constitution again underwent a change by way of insertion of clause 2 of Article 226. Bombay Snuff (supra) has been followed by Karnataka High Court in Big Apple Computers Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad 2007 (207) ELT 36, wherein it was held :-
"10. This judgment clearly applies to the facts of this case. We also see a subsequent judgment of the Delhi High Court 2006 (194) ELT 264. In the said case, the High Court was considering as to whether in terms of Section 35(G)3 of the Customs Act the Delhi High Court could consider the appeal, filed by the 5 MP No.114/2017 assessee. The tribunal in para 6 noticed as under;
6. The only difference in the legal position that existed at the time the above decision was rendered and the position that prevails today is that instead of the law envisaging a reference from the tribunal to the High Court, the law now provides for an appeal from every order passed by the appellate tribunal. That difference does not however affect the reasoning underlying the view taken by this court in regard to its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 35G. If a petition seeking reference under Section 35G was not maintainable in this court, there is no reason why an appeal under the said provision after its amendment can be said to be maintainable. On the reasoning adopted by this amendment can be said to be so maintainable. On the reasoning adopted by this court in Technological Institute of Textile's case (supra), an appeal under Section 35G must also be filed only in the High Court who has jurisdiction over the authority from whose order the proceedings have originated. The fact that the main seat of the CESTAT is situated in Delhi or that the appeal was heard and decided at Delhi would not mean that all appeals arising from cases so decided regardless from which State the case has originated can be maintained in this court."
30. to 38. xxx xxx xxx "39. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:
"20. Other suits to be instituted where defendant reside or cause of action arises.--- Subject to the limitation aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction -----
* * * *
(c) the cause of action, wholly, or in part, arises."6 MP No.114/2017
40. Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions thereof would not apply to writ proceedings, the phraseology used in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Clause (2) of Article 226, being in pari materia, the decisions of this Court rendered on interpretation of Section 20(c) of CPC shall apply to the writ proceedings also. Before proceeding to discuss the matter further it may be pointed out that the entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action, as what is necessary to be proved, before the petitioner can obtain a decree, is material facts. The expression material facts is also known as integral facts.
41. Keeping in view the expression "cause of action"
used in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction thereof accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter though the doctrine of forum conveniens may also have to be considered.
42. In Mussummat Chand Kour V. Partap Singh (1887-
88) 15 IA 156), it was held:-
"[T]he cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour."
(emphasis in original)
8. Judgment of Vishnu Agrawal (supra) is regarding jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7 MP No.114/2017
9. In the case of Suresh Sharma (supra) para-8 is relevant for deciding the issue of jurisdiction, therefore, same is quoted as under :-
"8.So far as the objection of the learned counsel, for respondent No. 1 about the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, according to us, this Principal Bench at Jabalpur is also having the territorial jurisdiction for the simple reason that although the suit was originally filed at Indore, but on account of establishment of DRT, it was transferred to Jabalpur where ex parte order was passed and the review application of the petitioner was also allowed. Against the order allowing the review application by DRT, an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was filed by the Bank at Allahabad which was dismissed and later on the impugned order of review has been allowed. According to us, since part of cause of action had arisen at Jabalpur and further because directions are given by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to DRT to decide the matter which is at Jabalpur, therefore, this Principal Seat is having territorial jurisdiction. In this context, we may profitably place reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 6 SCC 769 (para 17), Kusum Ignots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254 (para
27). We may also place reliance on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Nasiruddin v. STA Tribunal, (1975) 2 SCC 671 : AIR 1976 SC 331 (para 36). Hence, we hereby overrule the objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 about the territorial jurisdiction by holding that the Principal Bench of this Court at Jabalpur is having the territorial jurisdiction."8 MP No.114/2017
10. Now it has to be seen whether this Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India to test award dated 25.4.2017 passed by C.G.I.T Jabalpur.
11. Heard learned counsel for parties.
12. Brief facts of the case is that Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi has made reference under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to C.G.I.T Jabalpur. Reference made to C.G.I.T Jabalpur is as under:-
"Whether the action of the management of Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP) South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (CG) in (i) non-serving of call book to Shri Ganish Kumar, Loco Pilot (Goods) on turn to Running Staff as per system of running staff working in force and treated unauthorized absent in duty from 3.1.08 to 29.2.08, (ii) Non allowing duty to Shri Ganish Kumar in dispute from the period of 3.1.08 to 26.1.09 and non-payment, the wages for the above period and
(iii) Awarding major penalty i.e. reverted from Loco Pilot (Goods) to Loco Pilot Shunting in lower grade to Shri Ganish Kumar w.e.f. 20.3.09 during conciliation proceeding is legal and justified ? To what relief the workman is entitled ?"
13. Respondent no.2 was employed as Loco Pilot in Office of Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer (OP), Bilaspur. Cause of action has arisen at Bilaspur. C.G.I.T situated at Jabalpur is having jurisdiction over State of Chattisgarh, therefore, reference was tried at Jabalpur. Award was passed on 25.4.2017 at Jabalpur.
9 MP No.114/2017
14. Article 226 (2) of Constitution of India is reproduced as under :-
"(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories"
15. Article 227 of Constitution of India is reproduced as under:
" Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court---
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may---
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause ( 2 ) or clause ( 3 ) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for 10 MP No.114/2017 the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces."
16. High Court will exercise territorial jurisdiction over subordinate Courts and tribunals, which are situated within it's territorial jurisdiction.
17. C.G.I.T Jabalpur is exercising it's jurisdiction in respect of State of Madhya Pradesh as well as State of Chhatisgarh, therefore, both High Courts i.e. High Court Madhya Pradesh and High Court of Chhatisgarh have jurisdiction to entertain petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India against an award passed by CGIT Jabalpur. It will not be left to convenience of parties to choose the forum as same will lead to forum shopping as has been held by Apex Court. As both High Courts have jurisdiction over Tribunal, therefore, it is to be seen where cause of action has arisen. Cause of action arose in Chhatisgarh and no cause of action or any part of it has arisen in State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, in this case, State of Madhya Pradesh does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India against an award passed by CGIT Jabalpur.
11 MP No.114/2017
18. In view of aforesaid, I.A No.7200/2021, filed by respondent no.2 is allowed. Misc. Petition filed by petitioner is dismissed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 2022.03.08 14:20:35 +05'30'