The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction and the application of relevant provisions such as Clause 14 of the Letters Patent and Section 15 CPC in determining the maintainability of a suit.

Application No. 5443 of 2014 has been filed by the first defendant in the suit C.S. No. 561 of 2014 praying for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Heard Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant / first defendant and Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents / plaintiffs.

3. From the materials available on record, it is seen that the respondents / plaintiffs are all employees engaged for the services required at the common industrial establishment of the defendants in Chettinad House. The first defendant Company was set up in the year 1935 and engaged in the business of Textile and Granites and Silica. The plaintiffs had all been originally employed in various Companies with the Chettinad Group and had been transferred inter-se the group based on the requirements of the Group Companies from time to time. The plaintiffs have stated that such transfers indicate that notwithstanding the separate corporate entities, the defendants run a common industrial establishment in the Chettinad House and the plaintiffs have been since transferred employed only in the common industrial establishment for several years. While so, the defendants are seeking to frustrate the contract of the employment by denying the plaintiffs their lawful salaries for the services rendered and continue to render. It is stated that the defendants are not paying the salaries to the plaintiffs even though they continue to be discharging their duties there. Therefore, the plaintiffs, who are 27 in number, are claiming the unpaid salaries from January 2014 for the first plaintiff, from February 2014 for the second plaintiff and from May 2014 in respect of the other plaintiffs. As the defendants are jointly and severally responsible for the salary to the plaintiffs, the suit has been filed in August 2014 for the following reliefs:-

(a) For a direction declaring the action of the Defendants in not paying the plaintiffs Wages/salaries, from January 2014 in respect of the first plaintiff, February 2014 as in the case of second plaintiff and from May 2014 for all the other plaintiffs as illegal.

(b) To pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.31,15,319/-together with interest thereon from January 2014 in respect of first plaintiff, February 2014 as in the case of second plaintiff and from May 2014 for all the other plaintiffs till the date of actual payment.

(c) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants jointly and severally from denying the salaries to the plaintiffs.

(d) Directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs costs of the suit.

4. Along with the plaint, the respondents / plaintiffs also had filed Original Application No. 673 of 2014 seeking for injunction restraining the respondents jointly and severally from denying the salaries to the plaintiffs / applicants pending disposal of the suit.

5. Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants / defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of bar in the jurisdiction in view of Clause 14 of the Letters Patent where the plaintiff has several causes of action against the defendants and if the High Court shall have original jurisdiction in respect of one of such clauses, it shall be lawful to combine all the causes of action. In this case, there is not even one cause of action, for the High Court to have original jurisdiction as none of the claims in respect of each of the contesting respondents is more than Rs. 25 Lakhs in value. Therefore, it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants / defendants that this Court has original jurisdiction in respect of not even one of the 27 causes of action. Therefore, the said causes of action cannot be combined. It was further contended that Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is attracted to the facts of the case and hence, the plaint has to be rejected.

6. Though the respondents / plaintiffs had not filed any counter,