M/s. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

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

#4. The Appellate Authority without going into the findings the order under challenge, mechanically accepted the order of 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 2nd 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 proceeding transfer 3 notice is a company within Competent Authority of a particular area to another authority of other area. The employer meaning of the Companies Act, which and/or provides 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 of administration and the ambit 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 4 of India & Ors. reported in [2020] 12 S.C.R. 279, applied the principle “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 retirement. Late husband of appellant had opted for receiving his pension in State Bank of India, Darbhanga, State of Bihar, which 5 was his native place, from where he was drawing his pension regularly for the last 08 years, stoppage of pension gave a cause of action, which arose at the place where the petitioner was continuously receiving pension……………………..”

#30. …………. “The principle that a case should be heard in a Court of parties, witnesses, and evidence are primarily located.”

#31. Black’s Law Dictionary defines forum conveniens in following words:- “The court in which an action is most appropriately brought, considering the best interests and convenience of the parties ad witnesses.”

#32. This Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) has also referred to principle of forum conveniens. Following was stated in paragraph 30:- "Forum conveniens 30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney 6 [AIR 1941 Cal 670], Madanlal Jalanv. Madanlal [AIR 1949 Cal 495], Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122], S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India [(1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1994 Del 126]."

#9. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Majumder, has raised an interesting point by submitting that the principle of “forum conveniens” can be applied, where there is more than one forum, meaning, forum for cases, where more than one area/authority has „the territorial jurisdiction‟ to decide the issue.

#10. It is stated that in this case there is only one forum, which can decide the claim of the workman for gratuity and as such the choice of forum by applying the principle of „forum conveniens‟ does not arise herein and submits that in all respect the judgment in Shanti Devi (supra) is not applicable in this case, as the facts therein are entirely different.

#11. Considering the submissions of parties herein, the judgments relied upon and the materials on record, it appears that : i) Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, lays down that : “7. Determination of the amount of gratuity.- (1) A person who is 7 eligible for payment of gratuity under this Act or any person authorized, in writing to act on his behalf shall send a written application to the employer, within such time and in such form, as may be prescribed, for payment of such gratuity.

#12. In this case, the “employer” herein is M/s. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, whose registered office is at Kolkata.

#13. For the purpose of conducting an inquiry under Section 7(4) of the act, the controlling authority shall have the same powers as are vested in a court, while trying a suit, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) (under Section 7(5) of the Act), in respect of the following maters, namely:- (a) enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

#14. In this case, admittedly, the factory is at Gondalpara, Chandernagore, documents, papers, registrars relating to its employees/workmen/establishments etc. are maintained at its registered (Head) office, at Kolkata.

#15. In Bhanu Pratap (supra), the Court relying the meaning of „employer‟ Companies Act held :- 8 ".... 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..."

#16. The Court further held:- “The affairs of the Company controlled, managed administered registered office. The payment of gratuity is also one of the element coming within the administration 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 Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas is not competent to decide the dispute raised under Section 7 of the said Act.”

#17. Section 3 of the Payment of Gratuity Act lay down:- “Section 3. Controlling authority.- The appropriate Government may, by notification, appoint any officer to be a controlling authority, who shall be responsible for the administration of this Act and different controlling 9 authorities may be appointed different areas.”

#18. This section empowers the appropriate Govt. to “appoint officers” as “Controlling Authority” via notifications and are appointed for different areas to oversee the implementation of the Act.

#19. This section sets up the machineries for enforcement, ensuring employees have a legal recourse to settle. As such, under Section 3 of the Act, the officers are appointed as “Controlling Authorities” and each of such appointed authorities may be designated for different geographical areas to handle compliance.

#20. As such, the appointment of such Controlling Authorities for different areas is not disputed and each such authority has its own area and jurisdiction.

#21. The dispute herein is as to the territorial jurisdiction of such authority, while excising powers under Section 7 of the Act.

#22. It is here that the judgment in Bhanu Pratap (supra), becomes relevant/applicable for the reasons therein, which clearly applies to the facts of this case.

#23. The principle of “forum conveniens” is to be applied where there are more than one 10 forums. The word “conveniens” itself suggest more than one forum.

#24. Here in this case, there exists only one “forum” and that is at Kolkata, where the registered office petitioner situated/located and it is here that :- “30. …………. “The principle that a case should be heard in a Court of the place where parties, witnesses, and evidence are primarily located.” The judgment in Shanti Devi (Supra) becomes relevant.

#25. In the present case admittedly, the petitioner’s registered office is situated at Kolkata and there is no other branch office and it is only the factory which is located at Gondalpara, Chandernagore, which is not a place where the evidence, witnesses and parties are primarily located.

#26. One of the contention of the respondents is that the factory in this case is registered under the factories Act and the factory is located at Chandannagor, which thus gives territorial jurisdiction to the authorities at Chandannagore.

#27. The said argument has no basis, as admittedly a factory does not maintain all registers/documents and other relevant 11 papers relating to the service of the employees.

#28. Considering records employment of the workers is to be verified and considered, while granting gratuity, the only forum herein is where the registered office of the petitioner is located being Kolkata.

#29. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated

02.05.2024 and 24.11.2025 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 passed by the Controlling Authority the Appellate Authority, Chandernagore, Hooghly, respectively are hereby set aside.

#30. The records of the Gratuity Cases be transferred from the file of the authorities at Chandernagore, Hooghly, to the Controlling Authority having jurisdiction at Kolkata.

#31. The Controlling Authority on receiving the records shall make all endeavour to dispose of the case on merit, expeditiously in accordance with law.

#32. On transfer, the proceeding in the gratuity case before the controlling authority be 12 completed within 60 (sixty) days from the date of this order.

#33. WPA 2944 of 2026, WPA 3562 of 2026 and WPA 25131 of 2024 are disposed of.

#34. Application, if any, connected thereto stands disposed of consequently.

#35. Interim order, if any, stands disposed of.

#36. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)