IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED "1"HISTI~1E 25'?" DAY 0? JANUARY 201
PRESENT
THE HONBE.-E MR. JUSTICE V GOPAI;AC4{C}W'['§tA_r*<,4A**:«'._«No: 14:3. 8"" BLOCK
CPWD % QUA'_'_m_'1«:~;2's
DOiV{_LURU. " V T
. BA.NG'ALC3RI3v 2; 560 071
v ~~ Pr_~:'mI.0N£«:R
5f(z3YS'r«':1 P~A-KULKARNE. ADV.)
AND I
3 UNION OF Il\EDiA
BY ITS SI9ZCRE'l'ARY
D EPARTM ICNT OF PERSO§\ENI:§L
AND TRAINING. NORTH BLOCK
NEVV I)ELi~iI W E 10 001
2 Ci'2N'I'RAL A1:)MIN1s'1'm'1'ivE 'IfRii§'3'U<NAI;.
PRINCIPAL BENCH A Z '
BY ITS PRINCIPAI- Ri'<:Gis'1'RA.R';
NO. 51/35. FA.R}.DKO'I' i:~zi2A/ HEAD OF OFFICE
; " -._ RESPONDENTS
:'i3Y" 'SR1 V"A5ui2)i;\}2§'i1i2ir\o. ccsc.)
._ '--"__f1*1---MS-«xii/1{'i'jiv'w"i>ia'rmoN IS m.1+:{) UNDER AR'I'lCI.E 225
esz 227 oif"*z':i_2a.i'«: COi\ES'l'I'l'U'E'ION 0;-=' iNDiA PRAYING TO
QUAEBI--1'Efi~i[i.OR.[)ERDATEE) 18.8.2009 ;>Assr«:I:) iE\3 cm. No.
_ ".1357/20~O9'«;_ BY Tl'-IE §"IO':\VlE3[.i3I CAT E3Ai.\§GAl..C)RE IBICNCH
H " 'V V VBANGALORE. VIDE ANNEX«/--\.
This petition coming on for I")i(ti;aiing Orders. this
V. GOPALAGOWD J.. nmde {he following :
in
ORDER
This petition is filed ag.{a1i1’1st. the order clateci
18.08.2009 passed in Original Applieat.ion
by the Central Admi11ist.1’at.ive Tribunal.
Bench. Ba1’1ggz1l()1’e {herei1’1aft’.er refe.I’,1fed {(3″‘2’1’s;.2’_’v’C}3x’If” .11;
s1″1ort). The petitioner is before t~his;”CL1s grciunds.
2. The brief 1″c.’..'(‘.’t:.-::s.._”..’i211*l.’dC’Iv’1.’A};’1§.3__’_V thei**ivg1_i_”lvegal e0ntee1’1t_.i0ns urged on behalf
.’–._ot’I.t:l*ie. im_d 211:’-30 to examine the e0r1’ee.tness of the
or.de’1*”0f t}1’e.f’C./3’1′ in I’C’I.l.1l’I1i1′}g the original 2=tpp1i(:at.i0n to
‘the pet;;it:ie;_1’}.e1* to present it before the proper forum. The
‘fp.rrit.m’ia1
_}t_t1’tsdt(‘tsic.n’1 to exantiate the case and pass £:1p].)1′()pI’i£1t(‘.
orders. He? has p121(..'(‘.d st.1’o1’1g reliattcc? upon Rule 6(1) (i)
& (ii) of CAT [Procecl1t1’e) Rules, 1987. in sztpp()1jE} ()-i:’_:1″1§_s
sttbrnissions.-3. he has plztced 1’e1iaI”:ce upon t1’1.<§__ t"c')'i"l'-i:'»jVwi_i'1;';__.'.-;._._"' .
decisions of the Apex Court:
1) KUNJAN NAIR SIVAR./s’vtAN’ss»._’NA’tR”‘]’vs¥;.s_j
NARAYANAN NA1’f§’At\t1) tJ1*t:ié6p4m–vhsc
386}: t
ii} KAt\31)1MALt;AfT-mttQ3H;W;5;t1’Af+» _& CO. vs.
VV[q’1£gj.1I.VO’I'{1V:’A{J:”‘ImSURAN’éE C0. (2009)? scc
‘768t* 2
_iii_) NA::At9PA”tv.vs” GURUDAYAL SINGH (2003
V rt2tscc§’2’r4’j
‘V’t:g)”sh{i5w_:’t_hAa’i’ VVtt1ve§..ot’de1′ impttgrted in this writ. p<–3t,it:i01'1 is
Viiiiétteci in iéj1.:u?. It" is 1’r;ier””‘r’1–o.t: o71_;11y_.err(.sr:e0.Iflf2w$.x’-.
but also st1!’fe1’s from error iI’1:’«v1E,1″>.V.A. He -1.1-;t::-‘:~.,t_’&_>::gj”V
requested this Court to set: the s.23..r11e
the petition and retnsmd t’h6′ to «the. “CAT for
1’eens1’de1’ation. after exahiiiiiyteig t:§1@é’– .i”11.&’tt{:€l’ on merits
and to d1spOSe..O’f,._I’.i’f1–€ s£:1_me..:’..’
4.”, Sri MiVéi&3_l:IC§»(TVg._1@21I’I1€d Counsel appeari1’1;_._§ on
behaif of has sought’ to justify the
l’ir1di.:igs and 1’62:-sQns’I’et%()rded by the CAT in its order
which 11;1’sh.ei’d__tha1t. CAT has no t.er1’it01*ial _;L:.1*isdict.i0n
I0′(:11€E’1’I”é1i-fl} the origins} Appliezition of the petiti0r1e1*.
‘.VHa1v*ih5; fcigtifd to the ttndisputed fact: that the order 0!”
fi’»:*éu’is«ifer was passed by the Chairman. CAT. Niew Delhi.
‘ “the (‘E11180 of acticm arose at New Deihi and si1’1(‘C the
\t{\[
pet’itione1* 11215 reported at Allelhalaad Bem.’}’1. part cause
of ~’:1(‘.1i()l’] muse at Allallabeld I~3ench. ‘i’he1’ef(..)1*e. 110 (#211139
of acticm or part (fa11se of action arose at Bz;11’1g’_.:v1~J,g)’1=.r;?Tto
maintain the o1’igin’c1I ‘c1ppHC£11’.i(‘)I’1 S{%ekiz’1;_;”_-‘:.I()’uqiljash-.–_ ~-
eit}’1er the 1:-z’111sfer order or the ()_1_fd.(‘l_’_ of :*(§;§_;(‘>ift=Ai:(:)v11.V(2f_’t.}’}e_ V
1’eprese11ta1t’i(.)11 of the petil.i0n.e1’°abeib1″e f1’1~€”A’B€i£1g£i§'(.).1;é:f–:
Bench. He fumher piaced stfz’:)_;ig. relieince.VL1por1*Ru§e 6 of ”
the Rtlles 1’efe1’1’e.d to S_11p1″d ‘cV;r1d:.é1}_s'(>».._the Cif’.”‘(?.!’.,5iQi’§1 of the
Humble Supreme Co1,’1hfi’h in” UP VS. RAM
NARESH LAL Y 1:¢po;~t;eec;t’ifi tA;R_::1’Q;7.Q Seizes in support:
of the:’fi11d’i1A1.gg5s_ by _t’.he CAT in its order in
1’e11e1r1’1ing the ()1*1g1:71f¢.1.1 a{)plic=ai’ic)r1 to petil.i(.me1* to enabie
him to _Vpresei1t ii,w .lj.et'()ite the appropriate forum. Furt}’1e1.-
“he ‘ts-21:9. $§’t.1bl’}’]iti@d tfhéit Rule 6 of the RL11es is very Clear
“e.aj;:pli(t21ti()11 ordinarily to be filed by an
elppi-ig::21r1ti ~w9i4i.;’h the Registral’ of the Bench within wl’1ose
Vj’11nrijsdic1;i.o”11 the cemsse of 2’1ct1’or1 wholly or in part has
_ in the ins£.a3″1t case. the petit:_ione3′ he:-ts .2-1h’eady
.!i,>e.e11 p<.)st':ed {'0 CAT Bc21'1 l12:1ba1d and that bench
has got. jm'isdiet'ioi1. The cause of action slionlcl have
()('Cl.11'l'€d wholiy or in part: at. Bangalore to i11voRe"«t'h–s:
jurisdiction of the CAT Bench by the pr;§i.:iti()iTief'
Bangalore. In View of 1'. he 1iri<:1i::sp1..:te£i-.faCtT_ li1v'<'4l'.1'A"'i:,'{'*'sf_' "or__{.1_ei'…
of transfer was accepted by the zi';.)pii_(:é1I1t.. é1i1'ci–.1fe.p(';1:'t€:Ci"w
for duty at Allahabad 1,h.§i1 sjgot,
jurisdiction in View ()tf;,i{n1e (i)Aj'(;i;yt Rules.
The question with of locai jurisdiction in, there is no anibigtiiiy regarcl to these has righily I'€?l.1lI"I1€d
the ()i’igg:ii:i%-ii’– petitioner to enable him
to pres3ei’it ii ._¥)€f(i»i'(‘ proper forum. it is furtzher
Ah’:-:onVt:end3E:d hir*nWAt:hat the cieczisions upon which
A*re1iar1ee_””is 3i2;1.f..;=.eci b the learned Counsel for the
pE?ti”l”.~i_(‘)i’1(f_’:1″ .t1Tz1\!e no application ‘to f’z-1(‘:ts of the case.
herefore: he }’ia=1s i’equestecl for dismissai of the writ
_’ p-:_§t.’ii. ion.
\/
5. With 1*efe1’enee the ztbove 1*:’\-12,11 legal
(‘()l’1f.t’1’1′[iO1’1S. we are required 1.0 exarnine the e0r1’ect’ness
of the finding of the CAT. B.’:11’1gEi](I)I’€ Bench in re11.1r___1’1ing1
the original applicat.i()i1 to the pet.ii:’one1* 10 e1’iei,.i_’)”i»e:”fhiizi
to present. it before the proper fomrn hOldi}’]g;j:’f,’i”1E?.I:’7Tifhihiifi” V’
no territorial jurisdiction for the -i’E”&1′.’;I=()’1’1S~”4I'(¥(j6i”d’CdVV by, if-
in the impugned order. On lAhCb’–b::’n1SiSb.'()_f’llhfi “ifi\.’.ail’v.
c:o1’1t:e1’1iii0ns the following p0in’t.§3 wdc1._ld fdf our
(:01’1sideration :
1. Whether the e2;11.i_se 0-f7:1:tftiiQ1i’-éiiiose in pan. 21′!
iiii 01′ 1i’21nsi’e:* was
‘ at [:32-inge-1I<)1'e'?
2. tihe” “£’:i”i’1(1iiigA._§ re(:0rc.ied by’ Q/Y1′ in
hvpldiing’ ‘1’.%1.2.i._I«’i{ has no jL11’iSdi(‘.1.i0n to enierlalin
V”i’IV’1′:%.*’:”‘original applieaiion to examine the
01′ the order 01′ Li’zn’1sfe1′ ancl
1′.€f_”i.€’_'(I’.Ii()11 01’€.!er of the re;.)1’e.<;enia1.ion is leggzil
and valid'?
H 3. What o1*de1*’?
\\K//
6. Poims 1 and 2 are i1’1tc1’1’e1z1t’ed. ltcttce they are
artswered t(t)get..i1e1′ by l’CT(T()1’diI’1g_§Ih€ followmgz l’e?:§1s()11@§’;-, ft.
is 1″1C(‘.t.’SS£11’y for us to ext.rac1 Rule (3′{1)«V…..()’£’7..’L’1.?fx’
(Pr<)('tcciu1'e] Rules 1987 W1"1i(.'h 1'e21(1s as he1'§*_t.ti'a{tc2'15i '~
"6 P]d('t' of f'i1i1'1g ap},)1ikj2:1ti:(:),1T1«.{v
applioatiort shall ordir1_a1'ily bé"–filed b}/:':1ri
z1pp1i(:2mt' with the Regi.:§t~.i;1r S
within whose j1.11'i§sdictior_1_:_
i} the a1pp1i<1.211'jt.'M ";'._1r'§iL:st'ec1_Vftnj.the time
bei1'1g§;–r.')r
(ii) t;}’1’r;*”‘zj_eit;1::;’é7 k’)ti:_a§§’t;’i()1’1–L’ x:%;_11Q_I}y or in part.
hasjév zi1’i~$_(3.’r1 ” ”
7. ‘Rti}c$’ at 1}}
i-i)””t–s_Eztfiplitiztlalt? in the I’act.s and
ui1*(*1.1mstz11’1(‘:cS V-.1f_é.’ »’i”‘he ph]’21S€S use<:i under clause (ii) of Rule
H 1},i__s. 'thé cattse of a<'.t:i0n. wholly or in part. should
.j_hé&vé érisen'. It is 21 well sett.le(1 princriple of iaw that
F" .
each phrase 01″ worci used by the legislature in 21
stzamtoly ;:>mvisic:)n is with 21 defirlite purpose and bjs:(.*t.
It is not U16′ (tzisra of the peti1i01’1e1′ that (hf?_.CétLlVi§E?:7€)f”V
action wholly arose at Ba11,<.;;a1c)rt*. The c: ¢1sc?f(3f'L'€h(%–..j
petitioner ihaltz part of the c:a1L.1s;'é of' 'z1<:t1~<_)11~: 'i?1a1jsf7tr2i;1sf’e1″ Sefiréiié
upon the pelnioner. The 1egaI”L’L;.)ds;it.ionV”in ‘tTh–iV;~’.s :’é::,g’211-d is
no longer 1’es–i111T.egra. T1’1V«;_=. S1_:ipr_c{ms:_ Ctmrt. in the case of
BEKASH BHUSHAN GHQSHVV NOVARTIS
INDIA LTD AM) ([izo0′”;’°5’sCc ‘£39.15; has mren~ec1 to
the ()bsj;%fi/HéiT’i(>I.:i§.sfv case of WORKMEN
vs. SR1 ERANGAVVII;fiS EV1§”i7ORS (P) LTD reported in AIR
1967 1049 V_\:}\rl”1.:éfcii’1. Apex Court had an ()c”_:<*.asi()1'a
'm Ac':2"t_ween ihe
t§’:a1’1a1g;e*t’;1.ér11. and workmerl in that (raise. In the BIKASH
T.i€3¥f¥”L§s.i4l1A:\1’ss (_?.2~1.Sc’-? SR1 11As MOTORS {PVT}
I,’FE”).. case is referred to and the rc;+icvz1m portion
ext:ract_ecl which reads as under:
” ‘I’ht’s takes us to the other points. Mr OJ-3. f¥fCl’E’}2()’i;!TCi 5 . ‘
st”r()n_qly urges that the State Gotverrtment Qj’T__t’\/Iys£)r”eM
was not the appropriate G()l,?€_L’t’t’f1″.£3t’II so r’tia,’–%e
referertee. He says that C1lI1″t()ll_(],§”1 tl1eficj?is’pt%tte.started
at Bangalore. the resolt.1n’Qn_ spam-s()’r*€ng t.’I’tt.95.tA.c’i.i;<;1:5t.tt:€:? .
was passed in Krisi'm.agt'rt. 0_ritt._A thatvh the'prr),Uer7–:es'I"ta
be applied in. the Case Q/' ir1c_i_t__L§iE1t_ta! __dts[).t1ies_i.s t:I;,§.'t"T.{3t'(3
the dispute has bc'r__t_.’;*;.p()r1’s()rea”.–«._V_I.f:_sc{er7Is ta that
on the __/’acts Qf this fl?1_’at}’ tjhere was a
separa.t.e est 4a’b1ist1n’1e’r”1t’ Vatht-3ct’i’tgj:c:.lQre. ” Mat’talt’ng am
was tt:ot’kif_r’tg t T there ‘a”‘rt’tu’nber Q/’ other
Lt.vor!cn1e}1 l.L}L”L’3″I’.’l>.C’lV’.fV:I’g””-Iii?! “”vT:I’f’1’e order Q1″ trans/’er.
it” is t.rt._te_.1Aafifias..t1tade«.tri'<.}§risijt:1agirf at the head Q[j't'ce.
but re ara'er on a tt'-()I"kl'"RCU"I u..~c)rkt'rt_q in
I3ar1.gatki;«re, .1'rt «")t.1At.'vI;'l["é,'..,f"~i'.! the High Court was right. in
f't_§:tI)'l'vC1t".7.7§;' tjhat .tijte praper questt'.On. to raise is: where did.
Eaisgiitttie arise"? Orciir1ariiy. If there is a separate
e:;_t. and the workman is tu»:.n'!a'rtg in that
«. 'esta'?3it;s'f1.r7tertVt. the disputje would arise at. that place.
"As ti._a_"'te '."1;t§;}I Court observed. there should clearly be
sorne 3r1eXus between the dt'.sp1.tte and the territ.or_t; Q/'
tt':re State and. not necessarily between the territory of
t.f't.e State and the t'.rrcIttst'ry eon.c:erm'r'tg u.:ht'c:.-it the
ciispttte arose. " V
8. By C2u’et’t.il reading of the 2.tf’0resai(i pa1r21gi’apl’1
of the cie(~.isi01’1 of the Hoifble Supreme Court mndared
in SR1 RANGAVILAS MOTORS PVT I.fl’D.. (12130. V\/(:’V.].-‘.~_(‘)ld
that the legal printiplt-3 laid down by the S1.ipi*eiiié:
in the said ciecision is applicable to the fact: S4]..l”L£E;1l;.17(.)xf1’.()ir.lll_f
the present: crase- Keeping in Vi€”\RI:.;(_.;’AlA’é’i>i’1:k:.§(V”‘ {-ii) of,Ri.«=_l£-i 65$)
the fact’ that part. cause of ac’ti0i’1_ l121s’v_’v_a”rivse11at l’
B.’:1I1g’c’1l()I”(-3 is an undisputed l;2″i’fjl.’.’»Tl1E? t3rd(ar_’of “i;r2111st”er
was passed by the Chg1i.a;mai1 l\lew béilii and
served upon the pet:iti0nez” g1t,..Bahg.~2zlV(5i’-é_;. .”.-1″lieref01’e. by
1
careful:”i9€4é1cii:il;; 0i§ VI?,ti’i~€-1V.”‘ b{i]_;”””CflaL1ses (i) 81 {ii}. the
pt2t.itic)1’1c:’r. had that’:_1=ig’i’1t__l”t:»Q,.-preserit. the petit.ion either
beforg.Alle1l1lé£bgid~ B.’rer Bench.
l”‘l511c:”*af)t.i.(5.1’1 “i3 left. tVi5″‘t’ll1e pet.iti0ncr. He had (_?l1()S€l’1 to
1;-3.:*ér.fe1* pét’.i_tvij<.~)ri 1'eqL1est.iI1g the Bangalore Bench to
<:xam__i11e_.~t}'1€:f.: trorrmtness of the order of t'.1*ai1s'fer and
Vi"i?_A§f:?7(Tl§()l},.L3f his rep1*esentat.ion.
\tt/
9. For the aforesaid 1’e21s()1’1s. we hold that” the
fiI}di3l§_{ e11″:d 1’€=aso1’1s 1’C'(.’.(}l’C1C€1 by the CAT f3211′:g_21l()rcé
B61161′) in rctur11i1’1g.>; the (‘)1’ig_§i11al appli(3atio11..”c).If”«.thg>
petitioner 1.0 emibie him to prese1′:t’ it bc>fc11’c-§”{—-he_ *
forum is not only erroneous. but ._a;11so” e1*Vf():–‘Tgi1i’ .I_:21vv’:._V
“I’}”2e1’c.fore. the same c1L1as11crciKby’._é1llow’i1jg…t}1cé’v_};v.1ji’tT–.
petition. Rule issued and n1a.(,i ‘e..;1bs(‘)ViL,::.e. .u’1″}.”;c§”~:iiémér
remitted to the CAT. loé-3e1r1ga11.o’1*c–. Bei’1r:h Wi.'{Eh’*.’:1wi’}).1_. of izhis order.
H ” VAkc:_/’:31′:1Vs”