Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner was charge sheeted by the respondents on 1-2-1994 at Madras. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 7-2-1994 from Madras to the Managing Director, National Dairy Development Board, Anand and RR (MR) Madras. On 18-2-1994, the petitioner has sent a letter from Madras to the Managing Director, NDDB, Anand. From 7-9-1994 to 7-2-1995, enquiry was conducted. On 14-2-1995, the respondents issued the dismissal order at Madras. On 3-3-1995, the petitioner filed an appeal from Madras to the Chairman, NDDB, Anand. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected and the same was communicated to the petitioner at Madras from the Chairman's Office NDDB in Ref. No. DB 175/5/78. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed. The respondents have filed a counter. When the matter has come up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents took an objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. No part of cause of action had arisen in this State. The dismissal order was issued by the office at Anand and therefore, no Court in the State of Tamil Nadu has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Both the counsel have submitted that this Court could decide the question of jurisdiction at the first instance. In this case, it has to be decided whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Clause 1 and 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India read as follows : 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs : 1. Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. 2. The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any. 2. The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any. High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that part of cause of action had arisen at Madras as the petitioner was initially charge-sheeted at Madras and the dismissal order was served on him at Madras. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that final orders have been passed at Anand, Hence the High Court of Gujarat alone has got jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, in this regard. It has been held that under Article 226 a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. The expression 'cause of action' has not been defined in the Constitution. The same expression occurs in clause (c) of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the said expression has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, the meaning to be given to the said expression is well settled by judicial pronouncements. 'Cause of action' means a bundle of essential facts, which it is necessary for the party seeking relief to prove if traversed by the opposite party, in order to secure the relief prayed for. 'Cause of action' means a bundle of essential facts, which it is necessary for the party seeking relief to prove if traversed by the opposite party, in order to secure the relief prayed for. Therefore, if the petitioner is able to show that at least one of such essential facts required to be proved to secure an order in his favour has arisen within the territory of the High Court, that Court will have jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.In Umashanker Chaterjee v. Union of India, 1982 2 Serv LJ 368 : (1998 Lab IC 1361) (Cal), it has been held that the infringement of rights gives rise to a cause of action, and consequently, the right to sue. Where it is the case of an employee that his right to remain in service has been infringed by the order of removal, the said order of removal, therefore, undoubtedly gave rise to a cause of action for the appellant to institute an action for the establishment of his right to be in service. It has been held further that the impugned order of removal, in that case, became effective only when it was served on the appellant in Calcutta. So long as the order was not effective, there was no question of accrual of a cause of action or the right to sue. But the moment it became effective there was such accrual of cause of action or the right to sue. The impugned order of removal having become effective in Calcutta when it was received by the appellant, as per of the cause of action must be held to have arisen in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of that Court. In the matter of Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd., 1984 AIR(Cal) 102, it has been held that under Article 226 (2), even if the person or authority against whom the writ is asked for does not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court still then the High Court can issue writs or directions provided the cause of action either wholly or partly arises within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. In Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. Ahmedabad v. M. D. Juverkar, 1989 Lab IC 224 (Gujarat), it has been held that passing of a dismissal order is not enough, it cannot become effective unless it is published and communicated to the concerned employee. In Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. Ahmedabad v. M. D. Juverkar, 1989 Lab IC 224 (Gujarat), it has been held that passing of a dismissal order is not enough, it cannot become effective unless it is published and communicated to the concerned employee. If an order of dismissal remains on the file of the authority passing it, it would not have effect unless the concerned employee is informed about the same and told not to report for work. One of the essentials of an effective dismissal order is communication thereof to the concerned employee and this constitutes an important link in the chain of events constituting the cause of action. In that case, an order of termination of service of an employee was passed at Delhi. It was sent to Calcutta Office where the employee was serving. He being on leave and at Ahmedabad at the relevant time, the order was sent to Ahmedabad Office and was served upon the employee there. It was held that since the order was communicated to him at Ahmedabad a part of cause of action arose there. He was, therefore, competent to file writ petition challenging the order before the Gujarat High Court.In Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Karur v. Karur Vysya Bank Employees Union, 1991 Lab IC 585, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the deciding factor as to the jurisdiction of a High Court is whether the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of that High Court and not as to whether the substantial part of the cause of action has arisen or not. In the above case, the Division Bench has further held that cause of action has to be construed with reference to the relief sought and the facts necessary for the purpose of granting the relief sought for. Cause of action is nothing but a bundle of facts necessary for the purpose of granting the relief. These vital facts have to be considered as forming part of the cause of action. When a part of cause of action arises, a writ petition lies within the jurisdiction of that High Court. Cause of action is nothing but a bundle of facts necessary for the purpose of granting the relief. These vital facts have to be considered as forming part of the cause of action. When a part of cause of action arises, a writ petition lies within the jurisdiction of that High Court. In Utpal Kumar Basu, it has been held that the expression "Cause of action" means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. Thus the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the petition being immaterial. In this case, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner herein has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution with ulterior motive and obtained the orders from the Court. In this case, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, there is a clear averment that the petitioner herein was charge sheeted at Madras and also the dismissal order was served at Madras. Under the circumstances, it has to be held that part of cause of action had taken place within the territorial limits of this Court. Hence this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to hear the writ petition. In view of the above, I see no force in the arguments of the respondents' counsel that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter.The Registry is directed to post the matter in regular course to hear the writ petition on merits.