Full Text
W.P.(C) 12888/2023 and CM APPL.50775/2023 & 50776/2023
Date of Decision: 03.10.2023 IN THE MATTER OF:
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (GURGAON EAST)
PLOT NO. 43, SECTOR 44 GURGAON - 122002 .... PETITIONER
Through: Mr.Sandeep Mishra, SC EPC, Ms.Nandika Vyas, Mr.Ashish Choudhary and
Mr,.Shurbhit Nandan, Advocates.
GURGAON-122002 ..... RESPONDENT
Through: Counsel through VC (Appearance not given).
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Gurgaon East (hereinafter 'RPFC') challenging the order dated 23.03.2023, passed in appeal by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II, Rouse Avenue, Delhi (hereinafter 'CGIT'), whereby the order in original passed by the RPFC was KUMAR KAURAV -2set aside.
2. When questioned about the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the RPFC submits that since the impugned order has been passed by the CGIT situated in Delhi, therefore, this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The facts of the case show that the concerned RPFC is situated in Gurgaon, East, Haryana. The respondent-Establishment is also situated in Gurgaon, Haryana. It is also to be noted that it is only the appellate authority i.e. CGIT, Delhi that is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.
5. Undoubtedly, a fraction of cause of action does arise within this court's jurisdiction as the appellate authority is situated in Delhi. However, it is well settled that the writ jurisdiction of this court is discretionary and has to be exercised in consonance with the principle of forum non-conveniens.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India 1, Ambica Industries v. CCE 2 and State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P) Ltd.,[3] has unequivocally held that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, the same alone cannot be a determinative factor for courts to entertain a writ petition.
7. The principle of forum non-conveniens has also been fleshed out
-3through a decision of the Full Bench of five Hon’ble judges of this court in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.4, wherein it was held that the whole foundation of the cause of action cannot be the situs of the tribunal/ appellate authority/ revisional authority while excluding the concept of forum non-conveniens. This view has been subsequently followed in a plethora of cases including the case of Chinteshwar Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India[5], where the court has held that the mere fact that the statutory authorities are located within the jurisdiction of the court is not sufficient to constitute a material cause of action. This court has pithily made the following observations in paragraph 27 of the order:
8. In the present case, both the parties are situated within the territorial
-4jurisdiction of another High Court. The sole fact that the appellate authority is incidentally located in Delhi is not a compelling ground to entertain the instant petition.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition and therefore, the same is accordingly, dismissed alongwith the pending applications.
10. The petitioner would, however, be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to seek redressal of its grievance, in accordance with law.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J OCTOBER 3, 2023/MJ/rg