HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Tashi Rabstan, J.
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Anil Dogra - Respondent
CR No. 35 of 2013
Decided On : 01-04-2022
Jurisdiction - Employment Dispute - Clause 9-XXII, Section 20(c) of CPC - [1971 (1) SCC 286, (2002) 9 SCC 613, (2005) 10 SCC 704] - The court discussed the interpretation of Clause 9-XXII of the Agreement, the jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of CPC, and the legal principles from the cited judgments. The court emphasized that the lack of jurisdiction is a fatal issue and must be resolved before proceeding further. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the trial Court to first decide the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-plaintiff, a Medical Representative, filed a civil suit seeking declaration of nullity of termination and compensation. The petitioners-defendants raised a preliminary objection on the jurisdiction of the trial Court based on the Agreement's Clause 9-XXII.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court observed that the jurisdiction issue involves a mixed question of fact and law and should be decided at the time of passing the final judgment after the parties lead evidence. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the trial Court to first decide the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of the Agreement's Clause 9-XXII, the jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of CPC, and the legal principles from the cited judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of jurisdiction is a fatal issue and must be resolved before proceeding further. Once a defect in competence is raised, it must be decided immediately before proceeding further.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The case was remanded back to the trial Court to first decide the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners-defendants regarding jurisdiction.
JUDGEMENT/ORDER :
1. Petitioners have come up before this Court through the medium of instant petition challenging the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu (for short, trial Court) where by learned trial Court while framing the issues also decided a preliminary issue relating to jurisdiction of the trial Court to hear and decide the suit which has been decided against the petitioners-defendants holding that the same was mixed question of fact and law. A prayer has been made for setting aside the said order dated 30.10.2012 passed by the trial Court.
2. Facts leading to the institution of the suit before the trial Court, in short, are that the respondent-plaintiff came to be appointed as Medical Representative of the defendant company with Headquarter at Shimla, in the year 1988 and as per the terms of appointment, all or any dispute arising with regard to employment of respondent-plaintiff was subject to the restricted jurisdiction of the Courts/Tribunals at Ahmedabad (Gujarat). It is alleged that the services of respondent-plaintiff were terminated vide order dated 30.07.2004 and aggrieved of the same, he filed a civil suit before the trial Court seeking declaration to the effect that the order of termination dated 30.07.2004 is null and void, in operative, in effective and against law that is required to be set aside; with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the petitioners-defendants to reinstate the respondent-plaintiff on the post of Area Business Manager. The respondent-plaintiff has also sought alternative relief of award of compensation from the petitioners-defendants.
3. Written statement was filed by the petitioners-defendants raising preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and decide the suit in view of the Clause 9-XXII of Agreement of Appointment, which laid restrictive jurisdiction of the Courts at Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in case of any dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants has submitted that the trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.10.2012 while deciding the preliminary issue of jurisdiction has fallen in error by holding that the same was mixed question of fact and law whereas under Clause 9-XXII, it has been specifically mentioned that all the disputes arising out of appointment/ employment shall be governed under the said clause and the Courts/Tribunals at Ahmedabad (Gujarat) only have the power and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said disputes. Therefore, the respondent-plaintiff, by virtue of agreement of appointment is restricted to approach the Court elsewhere except Ahmedabad (Gujarat). Learned counsel further submitted that once the parties are governed by an agreement and there is a stipulation contained therein which specifically lays down the jurisdiction of a particular Court, it no longer remains the issue of fact and the trial Court should have considered this fact and decided the preliminary issue in accordance with the terms of contract. Thus, the findings returned by the learned trial Court on the issue of jurisdiction is not only contrary to the agreement of appointment, but, also is against the settled proposition of law which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that the findings of the learned trial Court that the issue of jurisdiction requires evidence is misplaced and without any merit because the contract in question is neither hit by Section 28 of the Contract Act nor oust the jurisdiction of the Court which the Court otherwise has. It does not even vest the jurisdiction upon the Court which the Court lacks. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants has relied upon the following judgments:-
(ii) (2002) 9 SCC 613, Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Rama Mishra;
(iii) (2005) 10 SCC 704, titled Shree Subhlaxmi F
Hakam Singh v. Gammon India Limited
Rai and sons Pvt. Limited v. Trikamji Kanji Gajjar
Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics (P) Ltd. v. Chand Mal Baradia & Ors.
The lack of jurisdiction is a fatal issue and must be resolved before proceeding further.
The court established that the territorial jurisdiction of the court was not completely excluded by the jurisdiction clause of the employment agreement, and the court had the jurisdiction to entertai....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of territorial jurisdiction can be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Jurisdiction clauses in contracts specifying exclusive forums are valid if they do not contravene statutory provisions.
(1) Territorial jurisdiction of Court – Court not having jurisdiction as per statutory regime cannot be bestowed jurisdiction by means of contract.(2) As long as an employment contract does not offen....
Parties may restrict jurisdiction to a designated court by agreement, provided that court holds jurisdiction over the matter.
Labour/Industrial Courts in Maharashtra have jurisdiction to hear complaints of unfair labour practice if relevant decisions are made within Maharashtra, despite employee postings outside the State.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.