By reason of the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2005, the said review application has been allowed holding that the Division Bench had number taken into companysideration two other decisions of the Division Benches of the said Court, viz.,
5869 W of 1994.
In support of the said objection, reliance was placed upon a decision of a learned Single Judge in N.N. Singh v. Coal India Limited C.O. No.
The services of the respondent were terminated at Mugma.
The General Manager of the area, whose office is also situated at Mugma was his appointing and disciplinary authority.
1 herein in the Mugma Area, in the district of Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
As he was serving in the Mugma Area and the office of the General Manager was situated at Mugma which is in the State of Jharkhand, a preliminary objection was raised in regard to the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
1736 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Civil No.
The Division Bench by a judgment and order dated 26.03.2003 opined that the Calcutta High Court had numberterritorial jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition stating In this case the Division Bench relying on an observation of the learned Single Judge held that since the registered office of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. is situated at Sanctoria, Burdwan within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court which is a necessary party and also the order of approval for dismissal was ultimately obtained from the Director, Personnel of the Eastern Coalfields Ltd., whose office is at the said registered office, the writ petition can be maintained before the Calcutta High Court.
7375 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
He filed a writ application before the Calcutta High Court.
A review application was filed thereagainst.
Respondent was an employee of Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Appellant No.
Therefore, this case was essentially decided on facts, but there is numbersuch averments in the petition that the order of termination, passed by the General Manager, Badjna Colliery, Mugma Area, Dhanbad had obtained any prior approval from the head office at Calcutta.
Therefore, this decision of the Division Bench of this Court does number held the writ petitioner respondent in this case.
