WHERE COM­MU­NI­CA­TION OF TER­MI­NA­TION OR­DER REACHES THE EM­PLOYEE; TER­RI­TO­RIAL JU­RIS­DIC­TION OF THAT COURT ARISES. P. K.S. SRI­VAS­TAVA V. UNION OF IN­DIA [SCC ON­LINE DEL 6149, DE­CIDED ON 1.12.2016]

Libertatem Magazine - - From The Courtroom -

FACTS

In a case re­lat­ing to main­tain­abil­ity of Writ pe­ti­tion on the ground of ter­ri­to­rial ju­ris­dic­tion of the court, the pe­ti­tioner ques­tioned his ter­mi­na­tion in re­la­tion with his con­trac­tual ser­vices with the re­spon­dent.

IS­SUES BE­FORE COURT

 Pe­ti­tioner is the Di­rec­tor of Goa ship­yard Limited claimed that the High Court of Delhi has ju­ris­dic­tion since the ter­mi­na­tion or­der has been is­sued by the Min­istry to the Chair­per­son of GSL in Delhi even though the let­ter has been com­mu­ni­cated to him in

Goa and not in Delhi.

 The Min­istry de­fended by say­ing that this Court did not have the ter­ri­to­rial ju­ris­dic­tion as the cause of ac­tion in the present case is the com­mu­ni­ca­tion of the or­der and with­out such com­mu­ni­ca­tion of an or­der to the per­son con­cerned; the cause of ac­tion is not com­plete for fil­ing of a case in a court of law.( Ter­ri­to­rial ju­ris­dic­tion of that Court arises where com­mu­ni­ca­tion of ter­mi­na­tion or­der reaches the em­ployee i.e. le­gal cause of ac­tion is com­pleted; http://sc­conline / Dec 19, 2016)

 Whether just be­cause the Gov­ern­ment of In­dia has is­sued its let­ter at Delhi would this by de­fault give ter­ri­to­rial ju­ris­dic­tion to this Court al­though this let­ter has not been com­mu­ni­cated to the pe­ti­tioner at Delhi.

HELD

The Court ob­served that the com­mu­ni­ca­tion of ter­mi­na­tion is not com­plete un­til and un­less a per­son knows about the or­der of ter­mi­na­tion of ser­vices be­ing passed, and an em­ployee will only know about an or­der of ter­mi­na­tion of ser­vices only when it is com­mu­ni­cated to him, and there­fore, since com­mu­ni­ca­tion is a com­pul­sory link and a sine qua non for aris­ing of the cause of ac­tion, hence cause of ac­tion will only be there­fore com­plete for fil­ing of ju­di­cial pro­ceed­ings on com­mu­ni­ca­tion and there­fore the place where the com­mu­ni­ca­tion is made would be the place where the ter­ri­to­rial ju­ris­dic­tion would ex­ist, al­though the or­der of may have been passed else­where i.e. Delhi in the present case. (Ter­ri­to­rial ju­ris­dic­tion of that Court arises where com­mu­ni­ca­tion of ter­mi­na­tion or­der reaches the em­ployee i.e. le­gal cause of ac­tion is com­pleted; http://blog.sc­conline.com/ Dec 19, 2016)

LEARN­ING OUTCOME

The mere ex­is­tence of an or­der in the gov­ern­ment file does not re­sult in a bind­ing or­der for cre­at­ing le­gal rights, and there­fore, when le­gal rights are cre­ated only on com­mu­ni­ca­tion and a le­gal cause of ac­tion is com­plete only on such com­mu­ni­ca­tion, thus ac­cord­ingly it is the place where the or­der of ter­mi­na­tion of ser­vices is com­mu­ni­cated that would be the place where the ter­ri­to­rial ju­ris­dic­tion arises. (Ter­mi­na­tion of Ser­vice: Ju­ris­dic­tion Lies At the Place Where Com­mu­ni­ca­tion Has

Been Made: Delhi HC; livelaw/dec 3, 2016)

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.