The main legal point established in the judgment is that the territorial jurisdiction of the court should be determined based on the location of the respondent's head office, and in this case, the court was competent to entertain and decide the writ petition.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is taken up for hearing by treating it as included in the day's cause list.

( 2 ) THE appellants herein were the original writ petitioners and the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises. The relief claimed in the said writ petition, inter alia, was to direct the respondents to give effect forthwith to the order dated September 8, 1987 and the circular dated September 17, 1987 (annexures "a" and "b", to the writ petition) and to extend the benefit of enhanced interim relief to the concerned employees of the second respondent-company, in terms of the said order and the said circular. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge holding that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, this court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.

( 3 ) THE order (annexure "a") issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Industry (Bureau of Public Enterprises), states, inter alia, that the Government had decided to authorise the management of public sector enterprises of industrial D. A. to sanction interim relief to employees with effect from January 1, 1986, in enterprises where the period of validity of wage settlements had expired or was to expire shortly. The rates at which the interim relief was payable were also specified in the order. The circular, annexure "b" is substantially in terms similar to the order, annexure "a" and it was specifically addressed, inter alia, to the third respondent (the managing director of the second respondent company ). Be it stated, at this stage that the second respondent is a wholly owned Government company operating in the public sector, and that it has its registered office as well as head office in Calcutta. .

( 4 ) AGAINST the aforesaid background, it is difficult to uphold the view taken by the learned single judge that this court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The first appellant/ writ petitioner is a registered trade union of the employees of the second respondent company who were employed at the material time in one of its refractories situated in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. It is not in dispute that the question as to the grant of interim relief on the basis of the order/circular, annexure "a" and annexure "b", is required to be dealt with and decided at the head office (Legal ). Under these circumstances, the relief in the writ petition was rightly sought, inter alia, against the second respondent company whose head office, as earlier stated, is situate in Calcutta. By virtue of the provisions contained in Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, this court was competent to entertain and decide the writ petition. The question with respect to its cause of action, wholly or in part, arising within the territorial jurisdiction of this court was not directly relevant, since Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution is attracted in the present case in view of the fact that the head office/registered office of the second respondent company, which is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is situate in Calcutta. In our opinion, therefore, it was an error to reject the writ petition without entering into the merits of the case on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

( 5 ) THE learned single judge has relied on the decision in Swaika's case, but it is clearly distinguishable. Apart from the vital difference in the factual matrix of that case and the present case, which factor always has a material bearing in appreciating the true ratio of a decision, Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution did not fall for consideration in that case. The relief was sought there against the State of Rajasthan whose principal seat is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. The case, therefore, was requ