Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 3398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
DINA NATH PUBLIC SCHOOL - Petitioner
Versus
ASSISTANT P.F. COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION AND ORS. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 5497/2016 & CM No. 22909/2016 & W.P.(C) 7048/2016
Decided On : 09-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohak Bhadana.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.C. Chawla, for Ms. Nazia Hasan, for Mr. O.P. Ahuja.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the concept of forum conveniens plays a crucial role in determining the appropriate forum for exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - [Article 226 of the Constitution] - [31, 32, 33(a), 33(b), 33(c), 33(d), 33(e), 33(f), 33(g), 33(h)] - The court discussed the concept of forum conveniens and its applicability in exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that the place where the appellate or revisional authority is located does not constitute the place of forum conveniens in absolute terms and that the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. The court also clarified the factors to be considered in determining the convenient forum, including the nature of cause of action and the factual matrix of each case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, located in another State, sought to challenge an order passed by the EPF Appellate Authority in Delhi. The court considered the convenience of all parties and the concept of forum conveniens in determining the appropriate forum for the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it would not be the most convenient forum to determine the raised issues and dismissed the petition as not maintainable on account of forum non-conveniens.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution based on the location of the appellate authority and the concept of forum conveniens.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the place where the appellate or revisional authority is located does not automatically constitute the place of forum conveniens, and the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction based on the doctrine of forum conveniens.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as not maintainable on account of forum non-conveniens, and the petitioners were advised to seek redressal before the appropriate forum.
1. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are located in another State. The entire proceedings, apropos this assessment, under The Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were initiated in Faridabad (Haryana). All their records, normal activities, the school children and the teachers are in Haryana and the proceedings were conducted in that State. The only reason why the petitioners seek to exercise jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is that the impugned order was passed by the EPF Appellate Authority, which is located in Delhi.
2. This Court is of the view that this by itself would not be the singular factor for this Court to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Court dated 01.08.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 6570/2010, titled: Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs Union of India & Ors., which held as under:
“..... 31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just adjudication of the controversy and such other ancillary aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken note of. Be it noted, the Apex Court has clearly stated in the cases of Kusum Ingots (supra), Mosaraf Hossain Khan (supra) and Ambica Industries (supra) about the applicability of the doctrine of forum conveniens while opining that arising of a part of cause of action would entitle the High Court to entertain the writ petition as maintainable.
32. The principle of forum conveniens in its ambit and sweep encapsulates the concept that a cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court would not itself constitute to be the determining factor compelling the Court to entertain the matter. While exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot be totally oblivious of the concept of forum conveniens. The Full Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has not kept in view the concept of forum conveniens and has expressed the view that if the appellate authority who has passed the order is situated in Delhi, then the Delhi High Court should be treated as the forum conveniens. We are unable to subscribe to the said view.
33. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are inclined to modify the findings and conclusions of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) and proceed to state our conclusions in seriatim as follows:
(a) The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole cause of action emerges at the place or location where the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority is situate and the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot decline to entertain the writ petition as that would amount to failure of the duty of the Court cannot be accepted inasmuch as such a finding is totally based on the situs of the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority totally ignoring the concept of forum conveniens.
(b) Even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this court, a writ petition would be maintainable before this Court, however, the cause of action has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd. (supra).
(c) An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
(d) The conclusion that where the appella
