LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/cement-workers-mandal-vs-global-cements-ltd-hmp-cements-ltd-ors-20190214/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Cement Workers’ Mandal vs Global Cements Ltd. (Hmp Cements Ltd.) & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
14 February 2019
Case No.
Civil Appeal No.5360 of 2010
Result
Allowed
Bench
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari
Citation
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 357 : 2019 INSC 197
Supreme Court Reports [2019] 3 S.C.R. 357 : 2019 INSC 197
Headnote

Constitution of India: Art. 226(2) – Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petition – Held: Expression “the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises” occurring in Art. 226(2) has to be read in the context of s. 20(c) CPC which deals with filing of the suit within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts – Issue as to whether the cause of action for filing the petition, wholly or in part, arose in the context of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, is to be decided keeping in view the provisions of Art. 226(2) r/w s. 20 CPC – On facts, the part of the cause of action as contemplated in Art. 226(2) has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court for filing the petition to claim appropriate reliefs in relation to such dispute against the Company – Thus, the application was maintainable in the High Court – Order of the Single Judge is restored to the extent it decides that the application is maintainable in the Gujarat High Court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 20.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Article 226(2) of the Constitution empowers the High Court to entertain the writ petition if the cause of action to file such writ petition against the respondents of the said writ petition has arisen wholly or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of ‘A’ High Court. Clause (2) further empowers a High Court to issue any order, directions or writ as provided in clause (1) of Article 226 in such writ petition notwithstanding that seat of such Government or the Authority or the residence of such person against whom the writ petition is filed does not fall within the territories of the “A” High Court but falls in the territories of the “B” High Court. [Paras 24, 25] [365-A-C]

Read the full headnote (4 more paragraphs)

1.2 Respondent No.1-Company has its factory at Porbandar, which is a part of State of Gujarat. The Labour Court, Junagadh, which is also a part of State of Gujarat, entertained the dispute between the appellant-Union and respondent No.1-Company and passed a recovery order. One of the reliefs claimed in the petition (SCA) pertains to non-payment of outstanding wages payable to the workers by respondent No.1-Company. Thus, the part of the cause of action as contemplated in Article 226 (2) has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court for filing the petition (SCA) to claim appropriate reliefs in relation to such dispute against respondent No.1-Company. [Paras 26-27] [365-C-E]

1.3 The expression “the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises” occurring in Article 226(2) of the Constitution has to be read in the context of Section 20(c) CPC which deals with filing of the suit within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. Indeed, the question as to whether the cause of action for filing the petition, wholly or in part, arose in the context of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and whether the Gujarat High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s petition (SCA) or not, is required to be decided keeping in view the provisions of Article 226(2) read with the provisions of Section

20 CPC. [Paras 28-29] [365-F-H]

1.4 Special Civil Application (SCA) was maintainable in the High Court inasmuch as the part of the cause of action to file such petition did accrue to the appellant within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court. SCA was required to be decided on merits by the High Court. The impugned order of the Division Bench is set aside and the order of the Single Judge is restored to the extent it decides that the SCA as maintainable in the Gujarat High Court. The case is remanded to the Single Judge (Writ Court) for deciding the petition(SCA) on merits strictly in accordance with law. [Paras 30-33] [366-A-D]

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No.1020 of 2006 in Civil Application No.770 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the said Letters Patent Appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein holding that the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Special Civil Application (in short, “SCA”) filed by the appellant herein which was entertained and allowed by the Single Judge. 2. A
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →