Judgment :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The writ petitioner herein has raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, in considering the case of the respondent no. 4 herein and has also challenged the findings arrived by both the authorities on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, vide their respective orders dated 02.05.2024 and 24.11.2025 in Gratuity Case no. 47/G/2023 in WPA 2944 of 2026 and orders dated 23.06.2023 and 30.01.2024 in WPA 3562 of 2026 and orders dated 06.09.2024 and 24.04.2023 in WPA 25131 of 2024.

2. The Controlling Authority decided the sole issue of territorial jurisdiction and held that the said authority had the territorial jurisdiction in the said matter.

3. In appeal the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the controlling authority.

4. The Appellate Authority without going into the findings in the order under challenge, mechanically accepted the order of the Controlling Authority deciding its territorial jurisdiction.

5. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Bhanu Prakash vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner & Ors. in WP No. 9532 (W) of 2010, decided on 2^nd May, 2012, page 7 and

8, wherein the Court held:-

“…………Neither the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 nor the statutory rules framed thereunder contains any provision for a transfer of proceeding from one Competent Authority of a particular area to another authority of other area. The employer is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, which provides that the notice and/or proceeding to be initiated before the authority within whose jurisdiction, the registered office of the company situate The Controlling Authority is the creature of a statute and they are bound to Act within its precincts.

……………………

The affairs of the Company is controlled, managed and administered from the registered office. The payment of gratuity is also one of the element coming within the ambit of administration and management which is obviously done from the registered office. Therefore, the controlling authority of an area where the registered office of the Company situate is competent to determine the dispute under Section 7 of the said Act. Therefore, the Controlling Authority at Barrackpur, North-24 Parganas is not competent to decide the dispute raised under Section 7 of the said Act…………..”

6. The respondent/workman has relied upon the judgment in Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Kishore and Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 11759.

7. It appears that the Bombay High Court, while deciding the case, considered the:-

(a) issue of the stage at which the aspect of territorial jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time and

(b) applying the judgment in Shanti Devi alias Shanati Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. reported in [2020] 12 S.C.R. 279, applied the principle of “forum conveniens”.

8. In Shanti Devi alias Shanati Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. reported in [2020] 12 S.C.R. 279, which admittedly was not in existence, when the Calcutta High Court decided the issue of territorial jurisdiction in Bhanu Prakash (Supra), the Supreme Court, while deciding a case related to the issue of pension and also the issue of territorial jurisdiction held :

“3. Form the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that part of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court. The deceased petitioner was continuously receiving pension for the last 08 years in his saving bank account in State Bank of India, Darbhanga. The stoppage of pension of late husband of appellant affected him at his native place, he being deprived of the benefit of pension which he was receiving from his employer. The employer requires a retiring employee to indicate the place where he shall receive pension after his retirement. Late husband of appellant had opted for receiving his pension in State Bank of India, Darbhanga, State of Bihar, which was his native place, from where he was drawing his pensio