CS(OS)/305/2021 of MANISHI SAXENA BANSAL Vs EXL SERVICES.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Signature Not Verified

*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

Pronounced on: 18.10.2024

+CS(OS) 305/2021MANISHI SAXENA BANSAL.....Plaintiff

Through:Ms. Srija Choudhary, Adv.

versus

EXL SERVICES.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD......Defendant

Through:Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Ms. PallaviSingh Rao, Ms. Shree Sinha and Ms.Meghna Bhaskar, Advs.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJANJUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.I.A. 9247/2022 (under Order VII, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPCfiled by defendant)

1.This is an application filed by the defendant under Order VII, Rule 10praying for return of plaint to the plaintiff on account of lack of territorialjurisdiction of this Court.

2.The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff who was an ex-employeeof the defendant company. In the suit the challenge is to the letter/order dated04.06.2021 terminating the services of the plaintiff, which has been alleged tobe wrongful and illegal. Further claim of damages has also been made by the

Signature Not Verified

plaintiff.

3.The learned counsel for the defendant/applicant submits that theappointment of the plaintiff with the defendant company was made videappointment letter dated 05.09.2016 and the place of posting as mentioned inthe said appointment letter is Gurugram, Haryana.

4.He invites the attention of the Court to the Annexure of theappointment letter to submit that reference in the said annexure is to thesubsistence allowance to be paid to any employee during his suspension andsuch suspension allowance is payable to the employees in respect of fourlocations where the defendant no. 1 is having its branch offices. According tohim there is no reference to the Delhi Office in as much as the defendant ishaving no set up of workforce in Delhi.

5.He also draws attention of the Court to the undated legal notice givenby the plaintiff prior to her termination, to contend that the same has also beenaddressed to the CEO of the defendant company at its office situated in DLFPhase II, Gurugram (Haryana).

6.He submits that it is case of the plaintiff herself that in Para 13 of theplaint the defendant company in the termination letter dated 04.06.2021 hasalleged unauthorized absence from work and gross misconduct at workplaceduring plaintiff’s medical leave. It is not in dispute that the workplace of theplaintiff was at Gurugram. Thus, the situs of employment, nexus of action ofcessation of services, as well as, the cause of action, all arose in Gurugramonly and no cause of action arose at Delhi.

7.He also refers to para 27 of the plaint, which contain the facts showingthat this Court has the territorial jurisdiction, wherein the plaintiff has pleadedthat this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit only for the

reason that the registered office of the defendant company is situation atJasola, New Delhi. He submits that the defendant only has its registered officeat New Delhi, however, it does not carry any business/commercial activitiesor business operations therefrom.

8.Reference is also made to the post termination communication betweenthe plaintiff and defendant company to contend that all such communicationsare with the officials of the defendant company who are based in Gurugram.The Court’s attention is invited to the e-mail dated 23.06.2021 written by theplaintiff to one Mr. Shailesh Singh (Gurugram HO-Human Resources).Likewise, an e-mail dated 02.07.2021 has also been written by an official ofthe defendant company to the plaintiff to hand over all the assets and relevantdocuments to the defendant at its office situated in Gurugram.

9.He submits that alongwith the plaint, the termination order which hasbeen placed on record does not mention the place from where the saidtermination order has originated. He, however, fairly states that the hard copyof the termination letter sent to the plaintiff is on the letterhead of thecompany which only mentions the address of the registered office of thecompany at New Delhi but it does not indicate that the same has originatedfrom the registered office of the defendant company.

10.He urges that since no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi,therefore, this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try andadjudicate the present suit. In support of his submission, he places reliance onthe decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patel Roadways Limited, Bombayvs. Prasad Trading Company (1991) 4 SCC 270, as well as, decisions of thisCourt in Braham Prakash vs. Govt. of NCTD of Delhi &Anr., 2007 SCCOnLine Del 1142;Degremont Limited vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation,

Signature Not Verified

2013 SCC OnLine Del 2852;PiccadilyAgro Industries Ltd. vs. AshokNarwal and Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1542;Amity Business School vs.

P.K. Gupta, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2950.

11.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffrefer to the termination letter dated 04.06.2021, to contend that the same hasbeen issued to the plaintiff from the defendant’s registered office situated atDelhi. She submits that the issuance of termination letter from the registeredoffice situated at Jasola, clearly depicts that the defendant company alsocarries out business from the office situated at Jasola, New Delhi, therefore,jurisdiction of this Court arises under Section 20(a) of the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908.

12.Placing reliance on the defendant company’s letter dated 31.12.2021,written to the National Commission for Woman pertaining to settlement ofdisputes with the defendant company, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffsubmits that the said letter also depicts that defendant company carries itsbusiness from its registered office situated at Jasola, New Delhi.

13.She also invites the attention of the Court to the experience letter dated19.08.2022 and the relieving letter dated 24.08.2022 issued by the defendantcompany to the plaintiff, to submit that the said letters also mention theaddress of registered office of the defendant company which clearly indicatesthat the defendant carries out regular business from the New Delhi office.

14.Placing reliance on the decision in New Moga Transport Co. vs UnitedIndia Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 4 SCC 677, she submits that the plaintiff hasa right to choose her own forum where there is more than one Court in whichsuch suit may be instituted. The defendant cannot insist that instead of CourtA, the plaintiff should file suit in Court B.

Signature Not Verified

15.She has also referred to the decision in Bela Goyal Propretor of ispatSangraj v.Viipi–MIPL JV &Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine Del 38, to contendthat in the said case, this Court was pleased to hold that the explanation ofSection 20 makes it clear that where principal office is located, the companyis presumed to carry out business from there.

16.Lastly, she contends that the Plaintiff has mentioned both the NewDelhi, as well as, the Gurugram address of the defendant company in thememo of parties just to show her bona fide. However, the action oftermination of employment, which infringed the rights of the plaintiff andgave rise to the cause of action to file the present suit arose only on04.06.2021 at the registered office of the defendant at New Delhi, therefore,this court is competent to adjudicate the present matter.

17.She has also placed reliance on the decisions in - (i) SwamyAtmananda and Ors. vs Sri Rama Krishna Tapovanam and ors. (2005) 10SCC 51, (ii) State of Andhra Pradesh vs T.V. Krishna Reddy and Ors.MANU/AP/0486/2008, (iii) Indian Peforming Rights Society Ltd. vs SanjayDalia and Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 161 and (iv) Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vsUnion of India &Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 254.

18.I have considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel forthe plaintiff, as well as, the defendant and have perused the record.

19.The short question that requires determination is whether this Court hasthe territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit. Section 20which governs the territorial jurisdiction for instituting suit of the presentnature reads as under:

Section 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside orcause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit

shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there aremore than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit,actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, orpersonally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at thetime of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarilyresides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain,provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given,or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, orpersonally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in suchinstitution; or

(c)The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Explanation – corporation shall be deemed to carry onbusiness at its sole or principal office in [India] or, in respect ofany cause of action arising at any place where it has also asubordinate office, at such place.

20.In Patel Roadways Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Courtinterpreted the aforesaid provision and held that where corporation has asubordinate office at place other than the place where the principal office ofthe corporation is situated and the cause of action has arisen at that place andnot at the place where the registered office of the corporation is situated, thenonly the Court where the cause of action arose and the corporation has asubordinate office, would have the jurisdiction and not the Court withinwhose jurisdiction the registered office of the corporation is situated.

21.The relevant para of the plaint wherein averments have been made interms of Order VII Rule 1(f) as to facts showing that this Court has thejurisdiction is as under:

27) That the registered office of the Defendant Company is situatedat Jasola, New Delhi and thus this Hon’ble Court has the territorialjurisdiction to entertain this suit.

Signature Not Verified

22.Evidently, in the plaint the plaintiff is claiming territorial jurisdiction ofthis Court only on the basis of the registered office of the defendant companybeing situated at New Delhi and not on the basis of cause of action havingarisen in New Delhi. There is no averment made in the plaint that the plaintiffwas employed or posted at defendant’s registered office at New Delhi or thather services were terminated at New Delhi or that the defendant carries onbusiness in Delhi.

23.On the contrary, the appointment letter dated 05.09.2016 shows that theinitial place of posting of the plaintiff shall be at Gurugram, Haryana.However, her services were transferrable and she may be assigned in India oroutside India to serve the company or any of its company.

24.In the present application as well, the defendant has specifically allegedthat the plaintiff was hired to work at the Gurugram office of the defendantcompany and throughout the term of her employment, she used to work at theGurugram office of the defendant and that the defendant carries on itsbusiness inter alia from the Gurugram office. These averments have beenadmitted by the plaintiff/non-applicant to be matter of record in the reply filedin response to the instant application. However, it has been for the first timecontended in the reply that the cause of action does not depend only on thesitus of the employment contract and the cause of action arose when theimpugned termination letter was issued from the registered office of thedefendant company situated at Delhi. Incidentally, this fact, as noted above,has not been pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint.

25.The law is well settled that cause of action consists of bundle of factswhich give cause to enforce the legal injury for redress in Court of law. In

Signature Not Verified

South-East Asia Shipping Company Limited vs. Nav Bharat EnterprisesPvt. Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 443, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

3. It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of factswhich give cause to enforce the legal injury for redress in court oflaw. The cause of action means, therefore, every fact, which iftraversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order tosupport his right to judgment of the court. In other words, it is abundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, givesthe plaintiff right to claim relief against the defendant. It mustinclude some act done by the defendant since in the absence ofsuch an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or wouldarise. In view of the admitted position that contract was executed inBombay, i.e., within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay,performance of the contract was also to be done within thejurisdiction of the Bombay High Court; merely because bankguarantee was executed at Delhi and transmitted for performance toBombay, it does not constitute cause of action to give rise to therespondent to lay the suit on the original side of the Delhi HighCourt. The contention that the Division Bench was right in its findingand that since the bank guarantee was executed and liability wasenforced from the bank at Delhi, the Court got jurisdiction, cannotbe sustained.

(emphasis supplied)

26.Likewise, in Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC

207, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

12. The expression “cause of action” has acquired judiciallysettled meaning. In the restricted sense “cause of action” means thecircumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediateoccasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the necessaryconditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only theinfraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the rightitself. Compendiously, as noted above, the expression means everyfact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, iftraversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court.Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished fromsettled meaning. In the restricted sense “cause of action” means thecircumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediateoccasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means the necessaryconditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only theinfraction of the right, but also the infraction coupled with the rightitself. Compendiously, as noted above, the expression means everyfact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, iftraversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court.Every fact, which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from

Signature Not Verified

every piece of evidence, which is necessary to prove each fact,comprises in “cause of action”. (See Rajasthan High CourtAdvocates' Assn. v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 294] .)

(emphasis supplied)

27.In the context of termination of employment, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors. vs. Kalyan Banerjee, (2008) 3SCC 456, held that the cause of action would arise where the workmen wasemployed or his services were terminated and the location of the Head Officeof the employer company will not confer any jurisdiction. In the said case, theworkman was employed in Mugma area in the District of Dhanbad,Jharkhand, where his services came to be terminated. However, the WritPetition was filed by the workman before the Calcutta High Court. In thisfactual backdrop, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

13. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta HighCourt that the entire cause of action arose in Mugma area within theState of Jharkhand, we are of the opinion that only because thehead office of the appellant Company was situated in the State ofWest Bengal, the same by itself will not confer any jurisdictionupon the Calcutta High Court, particularly when the head officehad nothing to do with the order of punishment passed against therespondent.(emphasis supplied)

28.Following the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.G.Jagdishan vs. Indofos Industries, (2022) 6 SCC 167, wherein the workmenwas employed as Driver at Ghaziabad Office and his services wereretrenched at Ghaziabad but the industrial dispute was raised by him at Delhion the pretext that Demand Notice was given by him from Delhi and the HeadOffice of the Management was at Delhi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed as under:

10. From the findings recorded by the Labour Court, Delhi and thelearned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, itis not much in dispute that the workman was employed as driverat Ghaziabad office. He was working at Ghaziabad. His serviceswere retrenched at Ghaziabad.All throughoutduring theemployment, the workman stayed and worked at Ghaziabad. Onlyafter the retrenchment/termination the workman shifted to Delhifrom where he served demand notice at Head Office of theManagement situated at Delhi. Merely because the workman aftertermination/retrenchment shifted to Delhi and sent demandnotice from Delhi and the Head Office of the Management was atDelhi, it cannot be said that part cause of action has arisen atDelhi. Considering the facts that the workman was employed atGhaziabad; was working at Ghaziabad and his services wereterminated at Ghaziabad, the facts being undisputed, only theGhaziabad Court would have territorial jurisdiction to decide thecase.

(emphasis supplied)

29.In Amity Business School (supra), the respondent therein wasappointed as an Advisor to the President of the Society running the petitionerschool which is situated in Noida and his services were discontinued byissuance of communication from Noida but the jurisdiction of this Court wasclaimed only on the basis of Society having its office in Delhi, this Courtrelying upon the decision of Patel Roadways (supra) observed that substantialcause of action has arisen in Noida, therefore, it is the Courts at Noida whichwill have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The relevant part of the decisionreads as thus:

14. No doubt, the Amity Business School is an institution set up andrun by the society aforesaid. However, it is not in dispute that AmityBusiness School has its setup in, and operates from Noida. It is clearfrom the facts narrated hereinabove that the respondent was

Signature Not Verified

appointed as the Advisor to the President of Amity Business School.The letter of appointment of the respondent was issued from theAmity Business School through its President. The respondent hadgiven his joining report at Noida. The respondent was discharginghis functions as the Advisor to the President at Noida. Even thecommunications in relation to the termination of his services hadbeen issued at Noida. Therefore, the respondent, though anemployee of the society was only concerned with the institution setup by it viz. Amity Business School at Noida. He had no concernwith the parent society or any other institution run by it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

18. The respondent/plaintiff was appointed at Noida as is evidentfrom his letter of appointment and joining report. It is claimed thatthe fact of the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to pay his duesconstitutes part of cause of action for filing the suit. It is not thecase of the respondent plaintiff that he called upon the defendant topay his dues at Delhi, even if it were to be assumed that the said actby itself constitutes part of the cause of action. In fact, it is not themere demand made by the respondent/plaintiff either through legalnotice or otherwise which forms part of the action but it is the actof termination of the respondent's service, and the act of denial orfailure on the part of the petitioner to pay to the respondent theamounts claimed by him which would constitute part of the causeof action. These acts have taken place at Noida. Consequently, Iam of the view that the entire cause of action arose at Noida wherethe respondent was engaged, he was discharging his duties, andfrom where he was relieved.(emphasis supplied)

30.A similar view was taken by this Court in Braham Parkash (supra). Inthe said case the petitioner was under the employment of the respondentmanagement at Neemrana, Rajasthan at the time of termination of hisservices, therefore, this Court observed that the subject matter of the disputesubstantially arose in the State of Rajasthan and the immediate occasion

Signature Not Verified

which resulted in the alleged infraction of the rights of the petitioner occurredin the State of Rajasthan, therefore, the Courts in Delhi cannot be vested withterritorial jurisdiction. The relevant para 15 of the said decision reads thus:

15. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case,undoubtedly, the situs of the employment of the petitionerworkman at the time of termination of his services was atNeemrana, Rajasthan. Thus the subject matter of the disputesubstantially arose in the State of Rajasthan. Consequently, it hasto be held that as the immediate occasion which resulted in thealleged infraction of the rights of the petitioner workman occurredin the State of Rajasthan, the Courts in Delhi cannot be vested withterritorial jurisdiction on the allegation that the head office of therespondent management is in Delhi or that the PF, etc. was beingdeposited in Delhi or even that the Directors of the respondentmanagement are residing in Delhi. In other words, by sifting out theextraneous factors on which the petitioner workman sought to placeemphasis, there is only one conclusion that can be arrived at, whichis that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the causeof action which constituted an infringement of the rights of thepetitioner workman arose at Rajasthan where he was lastlyemployed.

(emphasis supplied)

31.Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted positionthat the plaintiff was appointed at Gurugram office of the defendant company.Even at the time of her termination she was working at Gurugram office,accordingly, the order of termination was given effect to at Gurugram.Further, post termination the e-mail dated 23.06.2021 was addressed by theplaintiff to one Mr. Shailesh Singh (Gurugram HO-Human Resources).Likewise, an e-mail dated 02.07.2021 has been written by an official of thedefendant company to the plaintiff to hand over all the assets and relevantdocuments to the defendant at its office in Gurugram. The cause of action

Signature Not Verified

which infringed the rights of the petitioner as an employee and furnished herreason to file the present suit arose at Gurugram where she was working at thetime of her termination.

32.Cause of action consists of the bundle of facts which give cause toenforce legal right for redressal in Court of law. Cause of action meansevery fact, which if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove inorder to establish his right to judgment of Court. The only averment madein the plant to claim the territorial jurisdiction is that the registered office ofthe defendant company is situated at Jasola, New Delhi. Undisputedly, theplaintiff as an employee of defendant company never worked in the registeredoffice of the defendant company at New Delhi. Even with regard to thetermination letter dated 04.06.2021 there is no averment made in the plaint interms of Order VII Rule 11(f) CPC that the same was issued from theregistered office nor copy of the envelop has been filed to establish thesame. The same only appears to be an afterthought. Therefore, no part ofcause of action has arisen in Delhi.33.In any case, mere presence of registered office of the defendantcompany in Delhi or the letter head on which termination letter is printedmentions the address of the registered office for correspondence, or foradministrative purposes, will not vest this Court with territorial jurisdictionover the subject matter of the suit. It is thus, clear that the Courts at Gurugramhave the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the cause of action has arisen inGurugram, where the plaintiff was employed when her services came to beterminated.

34.In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that this Court hasno territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

Signature Not Verified

35.The application is thus, allowed and disposed.CS(OS) 305/2021

36.As the view has been taken that this Court lacks the territorialjurisdiction to entertain the suit, the plaint is directed to be returned underOrder VII Rule 10(1) CPC to be presented to the Court in which the suitshould have been instituted.

37.The Registry is directed to make necessary endorsements, in terms ofthe Order VII Rule 10(2) CPC.

38.The date already fixed i.e. 12.11.2024, stands cancelled.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

OCTOBER 18, 2024/N.S.ASWAL/dss