The main legal point established in the judgment is that the territorial jurisdiction for filing a writ petition lies at the place where the original authority/court had exercised jurisdiction, as per the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and the interpretation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER

A.S. Bopanna, J. - The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 19.06.2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CO. No.208 of 2006 whereby the High Court has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellants herein on the ground that it does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the issue for consideration herein is as to whether the appellants could have maintained the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Calcutta High Court. The facts leading to such situation is that the appellants-herein claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal had approached the Calcutta High Court assailing the same. Since the order was passed by the Appellate Tribunal situated at New Delhi, the Calcutta High Court has declined to entertain the writ petition on holding that it has no jurisdiction as the situs of the Tribunal is at New Delhi which is outside its territorial jurisdiction. The appellants claiming to be aggrieved are before this Court in this appeal.

2. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and also perused the relevant papers.

3. It is noted that the issue which had arisen for consideration in the original proceedings was with regard to the remittance of the provident fund contribution relating to the component of "Government dearness allowance" in respect of the employees of appellants-herein. In that circumstance, the order passed by the Competent Authority, namely, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Calcutta was against the appellants herein and it is in that circumstance the appellants had filed the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as contemplated under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Appellate Authority has decided the matter against the appellants. Insofar as the issue raised on merits relating to the payment of contribution, the same does not arise for consideration before us at this juncture since a consideration with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Appellate Tribunal would have to be considered at the outset by the Competent High Court in the writ petition on the contentions which have been raised on merits relating to the order. The only issue for our consideration herein is as to whether the writ petition filed by the appellants assailing such order would be maintainable before the Calcutta High Court wherein the appellants had assailed the said order.

4. Insofar as that aspect of the matter as already noted in the instant case, the original authority, namely, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Calcutta situated in West Bengal and the order dated 20.10.2005 was passed by the authority under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act at Calcutta. The appeal provided under Section 7-I of that Act would, however, lie to the Tribunal situate at new Delhi. If that be the position, the original authority is situate, within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. On the aspect relating to the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition at the place where the original authority is situate, the issue is no more res integra inasmuch as this Court while considering the matter in the case of Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2006) 6 SCC 769 has addressed such issue. In that case, the consideration in the appeal was with regard to the determination of the sit us of the High Court in which the appeal would lie under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act,1944. The issue therein was with regard to the maintainability or otherwise of the writ petition before the High Court at New Delhi merely because the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) is situated at New Delhi. While considering the s