The deciding factor for the jurisdiction of a High Court is whether the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within its jurisdiction, as per Article 226(2) of the Constitution.

K.A. Swami, J.—At the stage of admission the respondents are notified. Accordingly, they have put in appearance through their respective counsel.

2. As the appeal involves only one question, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.

3. This appeal is preferred against the order dated October 3, 1988 passed in Writ Petition No. 16789/1987.

4. The appellant was the second respondent in the writ petition. The first respondent was the petitioner. First respondent is Karur Vysya Bank Employees Union by its General Secretary. In the writ petition the union sought for quashing the order/endorsement dated June 30, 1987 bearing No. L-12011/17/86-D : IV(A) issued by the Government of India produced as Annexure-C.

4.1. In respect of the claim made by the employees of Karur Vysya Bank Employees Union for payment of higher percentage of bonus for the accounting year 1981, the Bank requested the Central Government to make a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore. The Central Government by the aforesaid endorsement stated that the subject-matter of the Industrial Dispute was covered under the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, therefore, the Central Government was not inclined to refer the dispute for adjudication to a tribunal.

4.2. The learned Single Judge has quashed the endorsement holding that as long as the demand involves a claim for payment of higher percentage of bonus for the accounting year 1981, there will be a dispute falling under the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, there is no justification for refusing to make a reference. The learned Single Judge has also negatived the contention raised by the appellant that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the substantial portion of the dispute has arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras, therefore, it is the High Court of Madras which alone has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution; that in addition to this the Head Office of the Bank is situated in Tamil Nadu and majority of the employees of the appellant are from Tamil Nadu. Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed and the impugned endorsement has been directed to make a reference.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, it is stated that the Central Government has already made a reference to the Labour Court and thereafter it has been transferred to Madras Labour Court. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of first respondent that as the reference has already been made, the appellant is not entitled to any relief in this appeal without challenging the order of reference.

5.1. It is not possible to accept this contention. The reference is made pursuant to the order under appeal. The fact is that the reference has been made, the right of appeal is not affected and if the order under appeal is not sustained the reference automatically falls. Hence, the contention of the first appellant in this regard is rejected.

5.2. However, having regard to the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant the point that arises for consideration is as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition and grant the relief sought for.

5.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as the substantial portion of the dispute has arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as it has arisen in the State of Tamil Nadu, it is the High Court of Madras which has the jurisdiction. Whether or not the High Court of Madras has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of the subject-matter in question is not a matter for consideration by this Court, and as such it need not be gone into.

5.4. The question for consideration is whether in the light of the provisions contained in sub-Article