We do note that the investigation suffers from certain flaws such as non-recovery of the weapon used by the accused appellants and recovery of the blood stained shirt after six days of the date of the incident. It has also been observed that it would be a great hardship if in spite of the corporation having a subordinate office at a place where the cause of action arises, such plaintiff is compelled to travel where the corporation has its principal office. The Explanation is really an Explanation to clause (a).

as to where the corporation can be said to carry on business. It is true that, normally, under clauses (a) to (c), the plaintiff has a choice of forum and cannot be compelled to go to the place of residence or business of the corporation and can file a suit at a place where the cause of action arises. The linking together of the place where the cause of action arises with the place where a subordinate office is located clearly shows that the intention of the legislature was that, in the case of a corporation, for the purposes of clause (a), the location of the subordinate office, within the local limits of which a cause of action arises, is to be the relevant place for the filing of a suit and not the principal place of business.

What it did direct was, whether or not a sentence of imprisonment was imposed by the Special Tribunal, that a sentence of fine must be imposed and that fine shall not be less in amount than the amount of money or value of other property found to have been procured by the offender by means of the offence. It was urged by the Solicitor-General that the Special Tribunal was advocates in Supreme Cour of Indiat error in describing the fines imposed by it as " ordinary " and " compulsory ".

This, it is clarified, will be the place where the principal office is situated (whether or not any business actually is carried on there) or the place where a business is carried on giving rise to a cause of action (even though the principal office of the corporation is not located there) so long as there is a subordinate office of the corporation situated at such place. Section 10 of the Ordinance contemplated no such distinction. No written statement was filed before the Labour Court, but a compromise was entered into between the workman and the Sarpanch stating, inter alia, that the workman was working as a clerk in the Gram Panchayat and he would be reinstated in service on the post of Clerk with continuous service and would be entitled to get all future benefits and further whatever amount is payable towards the post of Clerk, would be paid in three monthly instalments and his service would be continuous.

The company sent a written representation to the Government denying the allegations. He was dismissed from service by oral order dated 23. Instead, the second part of the Explanation would have read and, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has a subordinate office, also at such place. That place should be convenient to the plaintiff; and since the corporation has an office at such place, it will also be under no disadvantage. The factual score which is necessary to be depicted are that the 1st respondent was appointed as a ˜Mukadam with the Gram Panchayat vide order dated 21.

The Secretary of the Government of Bihar in the Revenue Department issued a notice to the petitioner company who were the lessees of mining lease, charging it with violation of ss. Thus the Explanation provides an alternative locus for the corporations place of business, not an additional one. If the intention was that the location of the sole or principal office [pic]as well as the location of the subordinate office (within the limits of which a cause of action arises) are to be deemed to be places where the corporation is deemed to be carrying on business, the disjunctive or will not be there.

This Court has considered while interpreting the provision of section 20 CPC that no practical or undue difficulties or disadvantage either to the plaintiff or the defendant corporation could be caused. 531 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. If a corporation desires to be protected from being dragged into litigation at some place merely because a cause of action arises there it can save itself from such a situation by an exclusion clause as has been done in the present case.

The clear intendment of the Explanation, however, is that, where the corporation has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises, it cannot be heard to say that it cannot be sued there because it does not carry on business at that place. The company asked for particulars of the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act from the Government which was furnished. 10, 12 and 14 Of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, and calling upon it to show cause why action should not be taken to cancel its licence which was being issued from year to year for mining Mica.

This was, therefore, not the purpose of the Explanation. It is in the nature of a clarification on the scope of clause (a) viz. It would be a great hardship if, in spite of the corporation having a subordinate office at the place where the cause of action arises (with which in all probability the plaintiff has had dealings), such plaintiff is to be compelled to travel to the place where the corporation has its principal place. As far as we can see the interpretation which we have placed on this section does not create any practical or undue difficulties or disadvantage either to the plaintiff or a defendant corporation.

The said order of dismissal constrained the first respondent to raise an industrial dispute vide Reference No. That place should be convenient to the plaintiff and the corporation has an office at such place, will also be under no disadvantage.