Territorial jurisdiction of a Court in case of WFH would be where the official place of work was located and not the place of residence

Mangala A.G. Vs Union of India (Kerala High Court)

Territorial jurisdiction of a Court in case of WFH would be where the official place of work was located and not the place of residence

Conclusion: When a person was permitted to work from home merely as a concession or a convenience, place from where the person so works was not sufficient to confer any jurisdiction.

Held: Assessee was a chartered accountant, who joined the service of the second respondent company as Finance Manager. She was posted at the 4^th respondent unit of the company at Rasayani, Navi Mumbai as Deputy General Manager (Finance). She was given the additional charge of the 5^th respondent Udyogamandal Unit.Due to the spread of pandemic COVID 19 in the State of Maharashtra, she was permitted to work from her home at Panvel in Mumbai. Later, due to the increase in the number of COVID cases, assessee left Maharashtra, came to her native place at Ernakulam and continued to work from home. She resigned her job on 31.10.2020. Claiming that assessee was not paid one month’s salary and the terminal benefits, she had approached this Court seeking reliefs. A preliminary objection was raised that the writ petition was not legally sustainable in so far as assessee was posted at Navi Mumbai, from where she worked, beyond this Court’s jurisdiction. This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. Though she worked remotely from home, she continued to be in the pay rolls of the 4^th respondent at Navi Mumbai. Even her work from home at Ernakulam, could only be considered as a notional extension of her work place. Assessee contended that, she was permitted to work from home at Ernakulam and also held the additional charge of the Unit at Ernakulam, and thereby this Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. It was held that a clear distinction had been drawn between instances wherein the employee was permitted to work from a different jurisdiction and the employer knowingly facilitated it, promoted the business at that place or conferred benefits for such business. The latter was held to be a instances of positive act, thereby the forum state acquired jurisdiction. On the other hand, if an employee was merely permitted to work from his or her own, without anything more provided by the employer by itself, would not confer jurisdiction to the forum state to adjudicate in case of a dispute between the employer and the employee. This principle could properly to be adopted in Indian context based on the principles of cause of action. However, as the situation changed and telecommuting or work from home became a permanent feature, unlike the temporary phase that had arisen at present, wherein, as a part of contract of employment, persons who were freshly recruited were permitted to remain in different stations and work from there, with facilities being provided by the employer or where the employer pro-actively encourage the employee to improve the business there and/or provides facilities, in that jurisdiction, the situation may be different. The employer, in such cases would be free to include appropriate clause relating to jurisdiction in the contract of employment. Thus, when a person was permitted to work from home merely as a concession or a convenience, place from where the person so work was not sufficient to confer any jurisdiction. Having considered this, this Court had no jurisdiction to sustain the Writ Petition.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.