Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors vs Kalyan Banerjee on 4 March, 2008
(iii) Thirdly, as the legal position now stands authoritatively settled, the
mere existence of a head office, branch office or business establishment
at Delhi would not ipso facto confer territorial jurisdiction upon the
Labour Court at Delhi where the employment and alleged termination of
the workman were admittedly situated elsewhere. As held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others v.
Kalyan Banerjee (supra) and reiterated by the Division Bench of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 9849/2016 Page 16 of 21
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
15:09:09
Court in J. Balaji v. The Hindu New Delhi and Anr. (supra), the
determinative factor remains the situs of employment and the place
where the industrial dispute substantially arose.
J Balaji vs The Hindu New Delhi And Anr & Anr on 5 December, 2022
(iii) Thirdly, as the legal position now stands authoritatively settled, the
mere existence of a head office, branch office or business establishment
at Delhi would not ipso facto confer territorial jurisdiction upon the
Labour Court at Delhi where the employment and alleged termination of
the workman were admittedly situated elsewhere. As held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Others v.
Kalyan Banerjee (supra) and reiterated by the Division Bench of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAPIL W.P.(C) 9849/2016 Page 16 of 21
KUMAR
Signing Date:11.05.2026
15:09:09
Court in J. Balaji v. The Hindu New Delhi and Anr. (supra), the
determinative factor remains the situs of employment and the place
where the industrial dispute substantially arose.
Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954
In this regard, reference may also be made to the
settled principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh
v. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340 , wherein it was held that a defect of
jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the Court and any adjudication
rendered without jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of law.
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a writ of certiorari can be issued only
where the inferior tribunal acts without jurisdiction, commits an error
apparent on the face of the record or arrives at findings based on no
evidence. The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, cannot
re-appreciate evidence as an appellate forum.
V G Jagdishan vs M/S. Indfos Industries Private Limited on 19 April, 2022
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.G. Jagdishan Vs. Indofos
Industries Ltd, (2022) 6 SCC 167 observed that the place where the
employment existed and where the termination operated constitutes the
place where the cause of action substantially arises. The Apex Court
categorically held that considering the facts of the said case that the
workman therein was employed at Ghaziabad, was working at Ghaziabad
and his services were terminated at Ghaziabad, only the Ghaziabad Court
would have territorial jurisdiction in the said case. The relevant paragraph of
the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
1