ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for Union of India. 2. Petitioner has made three prayers in relation to his grievances, which are quoted hereunder:- (A) For direction upon respondent no. 1 & 2 to affirm, confirm and convey to respondent no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 that the provisional certificate of overman's competency certificate granted to petitioner by respondent no. 2 under the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1957 (Annexure no.2) is well recognized certificate as good as original and the said provisional certificate has got same value and same force as original certificate for all purposes. (B) For direction upon Respondent no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 to accept the provisional certificate of the petitioner granted by respondent no. 2 and treat the same as good as original certificate and give him all consequential benefits from the date of production of said provisional certificate in compliance of clause 3 of the terms and conditions of petitioner's appointment letter no. GMDC/PE: 12011: 97-98 dated 19th December 1997 (Annexure-1) and accordingly place him in grade of overman/Mine Surveyor in scale of Rs. 2200-4000 with effect from the date of production of said certificate i.e. 16.04.1998 with all consequential benefits. (C) For quashing and setting aside the acceptance of forced resignation of the petitioner vide letter no. GMDC/HR/7868/2011-12 dated 19/10/2011( Annexure-45) issued by Respondent no. 3 which was an outcome of the forced resignation and constructive dismissal of the petitioner from service under compelling circumstances created by Respondent no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 by which petitioner was forced to resign vide his conditional resignation letter dated 30.09.2011 (Annexure-44) which was the outcome of petitioner's protest, anguish and disappointment for non consideration of his provisional certificate granted by the Respondent no. 2 (Annexure-2) and not giving him benefits from the date of production of said provisional certificate i.e. 16.04.1998 and thereafter petitioner was forced to work under his juniors under coercive and humiliating condition continuously for last 12 years leaving no option left to petitioner but either to continue in service under said humiliating condition or resign from the service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken efforts to justify the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court by submitting that it is the dispute relating to the provisional certificate of Overman's Competency Certificate granted by respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken efforts to justify the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court by submitting that it is the dispute relating to the provisional certificate of Overman's Competency Certificate granted by respondent no. 2 i.e., Board of Mining Examination under Directorate General of Mine Safety, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) which is the genesis of all other grievances relating to the service of the petitioner and forced resignation to his employer. Petitioner claims to have been appointed under Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. on the post of Junior Mining Engineer Trainee as per Annexure-1, appointment offer dated 19th December, 1997. The requirement of submission of certificate of overman as per Clause 3 of the appointment offer was also complied with by the petitioner by production of provisional certificate of overman issued by respondent no. 2 which is at Annexure-2 dated 20th March, 1998. 4. The averments made in the writ petition raise the grievances of the petitioner relating to his service career under the Respondent-Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Petitioner contends that the provisional certificate issued by respondent no. 2 has not been treated as original certificate by his employer and denied him all consequential benefits. He has not been placed in the appropriate grade and scale of pay with effect from the date of production of said certificate i.e. 16th April, 1998. Prayer no. B is to that effect. Prayer no. C is in relation to quashing of acceptance of forced resignation of the petitioner vide letter dated 19th October, 2011, Annexure-45 issued by respondent no. 3, his employer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire grievance is in relation to non-consideration of the certificate of overman submitted by him as original and having same force for all purposes by his employer. Rest of the grievances need not be pressed, as, if the first prayer is allowed the main grievance of the petitioner is redressed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire grievance is in relation to non-consideration of the certificate of overman submitted by him as original and having same force for all purposes by his employer. Rest of the grievances need not be pressed, as, if the first prayer is allowed the main grievance of the petitioner is redressed. 6. Consideration of the aforesaid submission in the light of the pleadings made in the writ petition and the prayers quoted hereinabove do persuade this Court to come to the conclusion that the question relating to his provisional certificate of overman is inextricably linked with the employment of the petitioner under the terms and conditions contained in his offer of appointment by the employer, Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. All grievances relating to denial of consequential benefits of post and scale of pay are also in relation to his employment under the Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Petitioner has also alleged that he has been forced to offer resignation in protest to his employer as the very issue relating to provisional certificate issued by respondent no. 2 has not been redressed properly for a number of years he has served under the respondent no. 3 since his employment in 1997. These relevant material facts, therefore, show that petitioner's grievances are in relation to his service and service under a particular organization i.e, Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. which is not amenable to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court as no cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. The first prayer of the petitioner relating to the provisional certificate is also in relation to his employment under the said organization and the contention of counsel for the petitioner that it can be divorced from rest of the grievance of the petitioner raised in the present writ application is also not worthy of acceptance. 7. In sum and substance, this Court is not satisfied that considering the bundle of facts which constitute the cause of action, the instant writ petition is maintainable before this Court. Petitioner is not precluded from raising his aforesaid grievances before the appropriate forum under whose jurisdiction the employer organization-Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. falls. 8. Therefore, on the ground of maintainability, the writ petition is not being entertained. It is accordingly dismissed.