With the advent of technology, work from home (‘WFH’) has become a new workplace. The concept of WFH is not new as various companies and institutions used to provide an opportunity to their employees of WFH on special occasions. However, the provision of WFH wasn’t widely accepted before 2020.
In 2020, when Covid 19 hit the world and global markets, the corporates and many institutions were forced to develop a digital way of working to survive the challenging times. With the passage of time, almost all institutions have adopted this WFH policy on a regular basis.
It is submitted that even post Covid-19, many institutions are still relying upon WFH mechanism either fully or partially. Furthermore, people at large are now looking for a hybrid work mechanism, where they are seeking some days of the calendar month for WFH. Hence, WFH has now become a new trend in workplaces across the nation.
As all changes come along with unique legal challenges, and put unprecedented legal questions. Similarly, WFH has, along with enormous practical and economical benefits, raised an interesting and un-precedented question of jurisdiction in court cases to the existing legal jurisprudence. In this piece of writing, the author has tried to throw some light on this question and the laudable attempt of the Indian judiciary to tackle the same to maintain law and order and provide justice to the aggrieved persons.
The Jurisdictional Challenge
The Jurisdiction simply means the power or/ and authority over a particular issue. As per the lexicon of Cambridge, jurisdiction means the authority of a court or official organization to make decisions and judgments.
Simply stating, the power of a court/tribunal/ authority to hear and adjudicate a particular issue. For instance, a civil suit of recovery arose in Delhi between the people living in Delhi can be adjudicated by a competent court of Delhi, and not by courts of other states.
The jurisprudence of jurisdiction is quite vast and elucidated in the statutes also. In criminal law, erstwhile chapter XIII of the CrPC dealt with the jurisdiction of criminal courts and now chapter XIV containing sections 197-206 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita, 2023 deals with the same (for brevity – “the BNSS, 2023”).
Similarly, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vide its Part I Suits in General, inter alia, deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts. Sections 15 to 25 discuss the jurisdiction and place to sue at length and specify the mechanism of place to sue and jurisdiction of civil cases to adjudicate various suits.
All these provisions though discuss the jurisdiction at length but fail to directly address the challenge of jurisdiction in WFH disputes. Since WFH doesn’t limit the territorial jurisdiction to a particular state or country, thus it becomes really challenging for the courts to adjudicate the issue of jurisdiction itself.
In civil cases, jurisdiction is often based upon the place of cause of action and the defendant’s residence. For instance, in the case where the home of an employee performing the work of employment through WFH mode, and the employer’s office are not in the same territory, the jurisdictional challenge shall become an unavoidable tussle.
Similarly, in criminal cases, whether WFH qualifies the scope of ‘place of occurrence of offense’ is an unsolved query as the same is not directly dealt with by the statutes despite the BNSS, 2023 coming into force post covid-19 when WH became a routine norm.
Ergo, with this new challenge, the Indian courts have stepped in and tried to fill the gap with an innovative approach. Thus, it’d be interesting to see the role played by the courts qua this jurisdictional challenge posed by WFH culture to the Indian legal system.
Notable Case Laws
There are various facets of a court’s jurisdiction. In civil cases, the cause of action automatically gives the right to the party to approach the concerned court. Whereas in criminal cases, the occurrence of crime primarily determines the jurisdiction of a criminal court.
Fortunately, Indian courts, on different occasions, have tried to address the different facets of the issue of jurisdiction qua WFH, and some of the important judicial precedents are briefly summarized below.
Cause of action
In the case of “Mangala vs. Union of India & Ors.” the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala differentiates two scenarios where WFH can give rise to a cause of action and when the same doesn’t meet the merits of a cause of action.
The court after going through foreign case laws and decisions, observed the following
“…A clear distinction has been drawn between instances wherein the employee was permitted to work from a different jurisdiction and the employ knowingly facilitated it, promoted the business at that place or conferred benefits for such business. …. On the other hand, if an employee is merely permitted to work from his or her own, without anything more provided by the employer by itself, will not confer jurisdiction to the forum state to adjudicate in case of a dispute between the employer and the employee. This principle can properly to be adopted in Indian context based on the principles of cause of action.
Common Workplace
In the case of “Sanjeev Mishra vs. The Disciplinary Authority And General Manager, Zonal Head, Bank Of Baroda & Ors”. the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan has observed that working on a digital platform while physically sitting at different places shall constitute a common workplace. The relevant excerpt is as follows:
In the present digital world, work place for employees working in the Bank and who have earlier worked in the same Branch and later on shifted to different branches which may be situated in different States has to be treated completely as one work place on a digital platform. Thus, if a person may be posted in Jaipur and acts on a digital platform harassing another lady who may be posted in a different State, it would come within the ambit of being harassed in a common work place.
Online work and FIR registration
The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of “Nitesh Vijaykumar Khawani vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” upheld the registration of an FIR filed at a place where the complainant was working online for an accused company situated at a different place.
Conclusion
The technology has been raising new challenges day by day and WFH has raised an interesting query qua courts’ jurisdiction. On one hand, the need of the hour is to appreciate the new changes of doing work and business and allow the courts to adjudicate cases without hampering much on technology. On the other hand, the misuse of filing false and vexatious litigations which has already been one of the problems of Indian legal system can’t be ignored.
The Indian Courts have rightly maintained a fine balance while adjudicating this issue of WFH. The case of Mangala has comprehensively analyzed various foreign judicial precedents and set a litmus test in determining WFH giving rise to a cause of action that shall only assist the courts and other stakeholders to deal with similar upcoming issues adequately. Further, other cases have also contributed in building up a reliable and uniform jurisprudence qua this issue and the said laudable attempt of the Indian courts is widely welcomed.
*****
Author: Advocate Lalit Ajmani, Delhi/NCR
Author Bio
