Disposed

Pramod Zumbar Jadhavar v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC28 Sept 2018WP/189/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his termination from service as a Junior Cotton Purchaser, claiming valid experience possessed. The court addressed jurisdiction, holding that since no part of the cause of action arose within the Bombay Bench at Aurangabad, the writ petition lacked territorial jurisdiction. The matter was disposed of without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Liberty granted to petitioner to avail proceedings before the appropriate court. No costs.

Pramod Zumbar Jadhavar Vs the Union of India and Others — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 189.17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 189 OF 2017

¶4

Promod Zumbar Jadhavar,
Age: 31 Years, Occu.: Service,
R/o.: At post Ware-wadgaon,
Taluka Bhoom,
District: Osmanabad 413 504.. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The Union of India

¶7

2. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. [A Government of India undertaking, Ministry of Textile], Kapas Bhawan, Plot No. 3A, Sector-10, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614

¶8

3.The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd.
[A Government of India Undertaking,
Ministry of Textile], 3rd Floor,
WB Plaza, New Cotton Market,
P. B. No. 606, Hubli – 580 029,
Through its Manager

¶9

4.Anurag Warehousing and Agro Processing
Warehousing and Cotton Ginning-Pressing
Factory, Survey No. 221,
Opp. Cap. Krishnakant Highway
Petrol Pump, Beed Road, Gevrai – 431127,
Through its Manager.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶11

Mrs. Dipali S. (Jape) Ansingkar, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶12

Mr. L. D. Vakil, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

¶13

2 wp 189.17

¶14

Coram:S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SUNIL K. KOTWAL,JJ.

¶15

Reserved for Orders on: 31st July, 2018 th Order pronounced on: 28 September, 2018

¶16

ORDER(Per:S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.):

¶17

1.Respondent no. 2 – the Cotton Corporation of

¶18

India Ltd., terminated the services of the
petitioner under order dated 10th August, 2016.

¶19

The same is assailed in the present writ petition.

¶20

2.Mr. Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the

¶21

petitioner submits that after following due
selection process the petitioner was selected and

¶22

appointed as a 'Junior Cotton Purchaser' on
03.03.2015. Show Cause notice came to be issued to

¶23

the petitioner that the experience of working at
an Institute cannot be considered and the
petitioner does not meet the experience criteria.
The petitioner replied giving the details of his

¶24

experience, however, the respondent terminated the
services of the petitioner. The learned Advocate

¶25

3 wp 189.17

¶26

submits that the petitioner has necessary

¶27

experience. As per the advertisement the candidate
was required to possess experience of one year.
The petitioner has worked at Anurag Warehousing
and Agro Processing Firm / Unit at Gevrai for more
than three years. The certificate of experience is
issued by the Manager of the said firm certifying
that the petitioner has worked with the said firm
with effect from 10th February, 2010 till 17th
April, 2013. The learned Advocate submits that the
respondents could not have discarded experience
gained by the petitioner with Anurag Warehousing
and Agro Processing Firm / Unit. The respondents
have discarded the said experience on the ground
that there is no record to show that the
petitioner has worked with the said firm. The firm
where the petitioner has worked has given a
certificate and also clarified that the petitioner
has worked with them. Only on the ground of minor
discrepancies in the record, the respondents have
inferred that the petitioner does not have the

¶28

4 wp 189.17

¶29

experience. The petitioner was also asked to
refund the salary paid to him. According to the
learned Advocate, the firm where the petitioner
was working and has gained experience is also a
party in the present petition and the said firm
has also accepted that the petitioner has worked
during the said period. The said firm on affidavit
accepted that the petitioner has worked from 10th
February, 2010 to 17th April, 2013. The petitioner
was drawing a salary of Rs. 6000/- per month in
cash. The petitioner was exempted under the
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, and as such, no statutory
deduction was made. Some of the copies of the
Attendance Register is also placed on record. The
petitioner has stated that he received Rs.18,000/-
per month, he is to receive Rs. 6,000/- per month
as a salary and the other amount as incentive.

¶30

3.Learned Advocate for the petitioner further
submits that the ground raised by the respondents
about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court

¶31

5 wp 189.17

¶32

is erroneous. The petitioner is served with the
notice of recovery of salary at Aurangabad, as
such, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the present writ petition. The learned
Advocate relies on the judgment of the Apex Court

¶33

in the case of Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of
India and another reported in AIR 2007 SC (Supp.)
1834, so also, the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Nawal Kishor Sharma Vs. Union of India
and othersreported in 2014 AIR SCW 4713. The
judgment of the Kerla High Court in the case of C.
Pitcheiyan and others Vs. Regional Manager, Co-
optex, Kochi and othersreported in AIR 1999 KERLA
328. According to the learned Advocate the part of
cause of action has arisen at Aurangabad as the
notice of recovery has been served upon the
petitioner at Aurangabad.

¶34

4.Learned Advocate for the petitioner further
submits that, the petitioner has produced before
this Court his experience of having worked with
respondent no. 2 – the Cotton Corporation of India

¶35

6 wp 189.17

¶36

Ltd., as a 'Field Assistant' from 10th December,

¶37

2008 to 18th June, 2009. For more than six months
he has worked as a 'Field Assistant' at Gevrai, as
such, even if it is considered the working of the
petitioner with respondent no. 2 is for eight
months though the record and the Attendance Sheet
produced by respondent no. 4 for a period of more
than a year, the petitioner would meet the
experience criteria of one year. The learned
Advocate submits that termination order be set
aside.

¶38

5. Mrs. Ansingkar, learned Advocate for

¶39

respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner was appointed at Hubli - Karnataka . The Termination

¶40

Order was issued to the petitioner at Hubli –
Karnataka. Even the Show Cause notice was issued
at Hubli - Karnataka. In view of that, this
Hon'ble Court would not possess the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the present writ
petition. No part of cause of action has arisen
within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction

¶41

7 wp 189.17

¶42

of this Court. The learned Advocate relies on the
judgment of the Calcutta High Court in a case of
Abdul Kafi Khan Vs. Union of India and others
reported in 1979 AIR (Calcutta) 354.

¶43

6.Learned Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3
further submits that the petitioner had submitted
wrong information. As per the Advertisement the
experience prescribed was one year of dealing in
agriculturalcommoditiesinreputed
organizations / enterprises. It is also stated in
the Advertisement that if the information
furnished by the candidate is found to be false,
then he would be terminated from service. The
Experience Certificate of the petitioner was
verified and it was found to be suspicious. The
Attendance Register placed on record of his
service with the erstwhile employer is false.
There is large scale discrepancies in the record.
There is no record to show that prior to the year

¶44

2012 the petitioner worked with respondent no. 4

¶45

Firm, whose Experience Certificate is relied by

¶46

8 wp 189.17

¶47

the petitioner.

¶48

7.Mr. Vakil, learned Advocate for respondent

¶49

no. 4 submits that the petitioner had worked for
the period as is certified in the certificate, but
the record and the Attendance Register prior to
the year - 2012 is not now available.

¶50

8.We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned counsel for respective parties.

¶51

9.The petitioner was appointed as a 'Junior
Cotton Purchaser' under appointment order dated 3rd
March, 2015 and was posted at branch office of
respondent no. 3 at Hubli - Karnataka. The
petitioner was issued with the show cause notice
dated 9th June, 2016 as to why his services should
not be terminated by the Corporation and that
salary paid should not be recovered. The said show
cause notice is served upon the petitioner at
Hubli. The petitioner replied the show cause
notice under his reply dated 28th June, 2016 from
Bijapur - Karnataka. On 10th August, 2016 the order

¶52

9 wp 189.17

¶53

was passed terminating the services of the
petitioner, so also, directing him to refund to
the Corporation the salary received by him from
the date of his appointment as he has secured
employment by misrepresentation. The said order of
termination and seeking recovery is served upon
the petitioner at Hubli. The case of the
petitioner is that he has received the salary
recovery notice dated 30th September, 2016 at
Bhoom, District – Osmanabad within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court.

¶54

10.It needs to be considered that the salary
recovery notice dated 30th September, 2016 is only
by way of execution of the order dated 10th August,
2016 terminating the services of the petitioner
and seeking recovery of salary under the said
order. The salary recovery notice dated 30th
September, 2016 would not be of any avail as the
recovery is already claimed under the order of
termination dated 10th August, 2016 served to the
petitioner at Hubli. The salary recovery notice

¶55

10 wp 189.17

¶56

dated 30^th September, 2016 would be a part of execution which will depend upon the fate of the order of termination and recovery dated 10^th August, 2016 served to the petitioner at Hubli. The petitioner at the relevant time was working at Hubli. It cannot be said that the part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Nawal Kishor Sharma Vs. Union of India and others ( supra ) referred by the

¶57

petitioner is on altogether different grounds. In
the said case, the order of cancellation of the
registration of the appellant therein was passed

¶58

in Mumbai and the appellant made all his
correspondenceregardinghisdisability

¶59

compensation from his native place. The Apex Court
held that the part or fraction of cause of action
arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High
Court. In a case of C. Pitcheiyan and others Vs.

¶60

Regional Manager, Co-optex, Kochi and others ( supra ) the employees were working in the office

¶61

11 wp 189.17

¶62

of Regional Warehousing of Tamilnadu Handloom

¶63

Weavers. The complaints were filed regarding bogus sale. The bogus sale according to the complaints took place within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. The Kerala High Court, as such, held that part of cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. In a case of Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of Inia and another ( supra ) relied by the petitioner the Delhi High Court had only observed that Allahabad High Court could deal with the matter more effectively, and as such, did not entertain the petition. The Apex Court in the said case, remitted the matter to the Delhi High Court.

¶64

11.The Apex Court in a case of Union of India
and others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and another
reported in AIR 2002 SC 126observed that all
facts pleaded do not give rise to cause of action.
The facts pleaded must have relevance to the lis /
dispute.

¶65

12 wp 189.17

¶66

12. In the present matter, as discussed above, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted at Hubli. He received the show cause notice at Hubli. The petitioner gave reply to the show cause notice from Bijapur - Karnataka. The petitioner received the order of termination and recovery of his salary at Hubli. Only because second notice by way of executing the order which was already passed was served at Bhoom would not ipso facto amount to cause of action. It cannot be said that the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

¶67

13.In the light of above, we are not inclined to
entertain the writ petition on the ground of
territorial jurisdiction. The writ petition, as
such, is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to avail the proceeding before the
appropriate Court. In that regard all contentions
of respective parties are kept open.

¶68

13 wp 189.17

¶69

14.Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶70

[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶71

marathe

Pramod Zumbar Jadhavar v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Zumbar Jadhavar v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagorao Shivaji Chavan Vs Sunil Purushottam Bhamre and Others

Babu Thawara Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Milind Manohar Deshpande Vs Trimbak Ashroba Kadam and Others

Ashok Arjunrao Khillare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Yogesh Annarao Lokhande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhanesh Bhaskar Ghuge and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others