Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. On the other hand, it is contended by the Plaintiff that the observations made in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd v. A.P. Agencies (supra) do not categorically hold that the ouster clause would also apply in the contracts of employment and that the said judgment was given in the context of a commercial contract. Reliance has also been placed on certain decision of the High Courts in M/s. Snehalkumar Sarabhai v. M/s. Economic Transport Organization AIR 1975 Gujarat 72, M/s. Patnaik Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Kalinga Iron Works AIR 1984 Orissa 182 and Indian Rare Earths Limited v. M/s. Unique Builders Limited AIR 1987 Orissa 30 . It is submitted that there are instances where a mandatory temporary injunction can be granted and this is one such instance. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Dorab Caswaji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden AIR 1990 SCC 867 and Sukerma Rani Kapoor v. Om Prakash Kapoor (2002) 2 AD (Del) 860.

21. As regards the submission regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, there is an ouster clause in the contract in terms of which only the courts in Greater Mumbai would have jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the Defendant clarified that Bandra (E) is in Greater Mumbai and in any event given the claim made in the present suit, it would have to be filed on the original side of the Bombay High Court. According to them, therefore, the Court in Delhi has no jurisdiction.

22. The decisions of the Supreme Court in regard to „ouster clause‟ have invariably been in the context of commercial contracts. In A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd v. A.P. Agencies, the Defendant was located in Gujarat whereas the Plaintiff was in Salem (Tamil Nadu). The objection by the Defendant as to the jurisdiction of the Court in Tamil Nadu was negatived by the High Court. The Defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The ouster clause in that case did not use the word „only‟ or „exclusively‟. In that context it was held therefore, that the ouster clause did not manifest the intention of the parties to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court at Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, the order of the High Court was not interfered with. However, the following observations in the said judgment appear to indicate that the convenience of the parties is also a factor that would have to be borne in mind, and that the jurisdiction of the court cannot be said to be completely excluded:-

24. In the considered view of this Court the decisions on the „ouster clause‟ in the context of a commercial contract have to be held to be distinguishable in their application to a case of a contract of employment. In the employment contract, an employee would not be able to insist that the disputes, if any, are to be referred only to one court and not the other. The employee usually accepts the employment with all the attendant terms and conditions or not at all. In the present case, the letter of employment no doubt states that it is a transferable job. Still, the Plaintiff was to work primarily for the Delhi office of the Defendant. He, in fact, rendered services only in Delhi office. He submitted his resignation at Delhi. For an employee no longer in service to be asked to go to Mumbai for instituting and pursuing litigation would render the remedy expensive and inefficacious for such employee. It would work harshly against him. Moreover, in a situation like the present one where the prayer is essentially for a direction to the Defendant to issue a relieving letter, to direct the employee to go to a different city only because of the ouster clause seems to be unfair and unjust. Although in commercial contracts, it has been held that such an ouster clause would not be opposed to public policy (see the observations in para 18 of the decision in ABC Laminart), in a contract of employment such a clause could well be held to be opposed to public policy. To repeat, the courts have thus far had no occasion to examine how a strict application of the exclusion clause would work for an employee who is out of service. As regards the comparative hardship, the Defendant has an office in Delhi and there will be no difficulty for it to appear before this Court and defend itself.

25. As far as Section 20 CPC is concerned, in terms of clause (b) thereof, the Defendant has an office in Delhi. The letter of appointment was received in Delhi. The email correspondence referred to hereinbefore shows that the Plaintiff‟s resignation letter was sent from Delhi and the refusal of the relieving letter was communicated to the Plaintiff in Delhi. The result is that the Courts in Mumbai (because of the clause in the appointment letter) and this court, on account of the substantial part of the cause of action having arisen here, have jurisdiction to try the case. The observation in ABC Laminart in para 21 that the intention of the parties to completely oust the jurisdiction of the court in Delhi will have to be tested in the above background. The use of the word "only" in the instant case to qualify the ouster clause cannot be read as conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the court in Mumbai.