INDBANK MERCHANT BANKING SERVICE LTD. v. SH. SANJAY VASHISTH

1. The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, impugns the order of the trial court dated 23.4.2014 by which the trial court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner/defendant for return of the plaint. The petitioner pleaded that the courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as respondent/plaintiff had been posted to Chennai and the dues which are being claimed are only for the period of posting at Chennai.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has however shown to me the order passed by the defendant/petitioner/employer dated 28.2.2012 which 2014:DHC:6859 specifically notes that the transfer to Chennai stands cancelled and the respondent/plaintiff was posted to Jaipur. This order reads as under:- “INDBANK MERCHANT BANKING SERVICES LTD. Registered Office: Chennai Transfer Order No. 54/2011-12 dated 28.02.2012 Our earlier Transfer Order No. 38/2011-12 dated 14.12.2011, transferring Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Senior Secretarial Officer, New Delhi Branch to Service Branch, Chennai stands cancelled. Instead he is posted to Jaipur for the terminal to be opened at Indian Bank Dharma Heights, 10 Moti Lal Atal Marg, opp. to Ganpathi Plaza, Jaipur-302001. You will be dealer in-charge of the terminal. As the transfer is made at your request, you are not eligible for any financial claims, reimbursement associated with transfer. s/d S.Selvaraj, Executive Vice President”

3. It is not disputed before this Court that the dues which are being claimed by the respondent/plaintiff are the dues which are till the posting at Jaipur and not for the period after being posted to Jaipur. This position is conceded even by the counsel for the petitioner/defendant/employer.

4. The only issue to be decided is that whether for the period from passing of the transfer order dated 14.12.2011 transferring the respondent/plaintiff to Chennai till the order dated 28.2.2012 was passed, whether the courts at Chennai will have jurisdiction or whether the courts at Delhi have jurisdiction.

5. In my opinion, the order of the employer dated 28.2.2012 reproduced above makes it clear that the transfer of the respondent/plaintiff to Chennai had been cancelled and it was not as if the respondent/plaintiff stood transferred to Chennai and he was transferred thereafter to Jaipur. Once the order of transfer to Chennai stands cancelled the respondent/plaintiff will continue to remain posted at Delhi, and hence the dues which would be claimed by the respondent/plaintiff as an employee from the petitioner/defendant/employer will be for the period of posting in Delhi prior to being posted at Jaipur, and hence the courts at Delhi would have territorial jurisdiction.

6. For the sake of completion of narration, I must state that respondent/plaintiff does not press the prayer in the suit with respect to claim of provident fund dues and it is stated that for such dues of approximately about Rs.8000/- etc, or any other amount, the same will be claimed by the respondent/plaintiff before the appropriate authority being the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is therefore dismissed. No costs.

DECEMBER 09, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib