The court ruled that jurisdiction clauses in employment contracts may be disregarded for fairness, allowing local courts to hear cases where the employment relationship's substantive issues arise.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present revision petition challenges the impugned order dated 17th April, 2021 passed by the Ld. CJ, Northwest District, Rohini Courts (hereinafter "Trial Court") in Civil Suit No.1164/2017 titled HDFC Bank v. Deepti Bhatia. By the impugned order, the objection as to territorial jurisdiction raised by the Petitioner/HDFC Bank has been rejected by the Trial Court.

3. The petition arises out of a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction wherein the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") prays for a declaration that the Termination Letter dated 31st May, 2017 by which she was terminated from the services of HDFC Bank, as null and void. Further, she prays for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

4. The Plaintiff was appointed as a clerk in the Lord Krishna Bank on 2nd June, 2005. Thereafter, the Lord Krishna Bank merged with HDFC Bank in 2009. Consequent upon the merger, the Plaintiff was appointed as Officer with HDFC Bank at its Janakpuri branch, New Delhi on 23rd March, 2009. The case of the Plaintiff is that she was promoted in December, 2012 and was working with the Retail Banking Branch, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi, when she was terminated by HDFC Bank, vide Termination Letter dated 31st May 2017. It is this letter which has been impugned in the suit.

5. In the suit, the HDFC Bank took an objection that the Trial Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction in view of the Clause (vii) of the Employment Agreement dated 23rd March, 2009 executed between HDFC Bank and the Plaintiff. As per Clause (vii), the exclusive jurisdiction rests with the competent courts in Mumbai, at the time when she was appointed by the HDFC Bank in 2009. The said clause reads as under:-

"Clause VII Governing law and Jurisdiction: This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of India in relation to any legal action or proceeding to enforce this Agreement. The Parties irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of any competent courts situated at Mumbai and waive any objection to such proceedings on grounds of venue or on the grounds that the proceedings have been brought in an inconvenient forum."

6. However, vide the impugned order dated 17th April, 2021, the trial court has rejected this objection by following the judgment in Vishal Gupta vs. L&T Finance Ltd. [CS(OS) 2309 of 2008 decided on 9th September, 2009], wherein a distinction has been drawn by the Court between employment contracts and commercial contracts. The rationale given by the Court in the said judgment is that an employee, who is no longer in service, cannot be directed to go to Mumbai for instituting and pursuing litigation, as the same would be expensive and unfair qua the employee. The Court has also considered the judgement of the Supreme Court in ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem [AIR 1989 SC 1239] and distinguished contracts of employment from the said case. The relevant observations of the Trial Court in the impugned order are as under:-

"5. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the place of suing in matters as the present one is regulated by Section 20 clause (a), (b) and (c) read along with the explanation. The law is settled and there is no denying that when the suit can be instituted at more than one place, the parties are at liberty to choose the forum of their choice. The main issue in the present matter is not whether the court at Mumbai shall have territorial jurisdiction over the present matter, but whether the jurisdiction of this court is completely ousted by the jurisdiction cla