At, High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: B. VEERAPPA
The petitioner has filed the present civilmiscellaneous petition under the provisions of Subsection (5) of Section 11 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 in terms of Clause-7 of theWorker Confidentiality & Assignment Agreement dated13.7.2009 entered into between the parties.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that therespondent appointed the petitioner as the Team Lead,Hardware Engineer and the salary was fixed at Rs.12lakhs per annum on 21.8.2008. The petitioner joinedthe services on 6.10.2008 with the respondent-companyand he was allotted with the employee identity No.161.He had discharged his diligently, regularly and withutmost punctuality, sincerity and with full devotion and he has performed his duty since 2008 for the upliftmentof the respondent-company and recognizing the same,the respondent had issued the letters of appreciation on29.7.2010, 27.5.2011 and 22.6.2012. When thepetitioner was working in the respondent-company on31.10.2014, the company abruptly refused to allow thepetitioner to continue with his work and informed himthat his services are no more required and thereby, theterminated the services of the petitioner illegally andunlawfully. It is further contended that in the saidtermination letter stating that he had misused thecompany resources is false, incorrect and without anyenquiry. Therefore, he requested the respondents toreinstate him but the respondent-company did not giveany kind of response. Therefore, he was constrainedto issue legal notice on 14.1.2015 to which therespondent issued a reply notice on 11.2.2015.Thereafter, the petitioner filed Original SuitNo.8840/2015 for recovery of salary but the respondent-company filed an application under Section8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seekingdismissal of the suit on the basis of Clause-7 of theWorker Confidentiality and Assignment Agreementdated 13.7.2009. Consequently, the petitioner withdrewthe suit filed by him. Therefore, the petitioner issuedthe notice on 8.12.2016 for appointment of the soleArbitrator to which the respondent issued reply on11.1.2017 agreeing for arbitration. Therefore, thepetitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel for theparties, it is an undisputed fact that the respondentappointed the petitioner on 21.8.2008. Accordingly tothe petitioner, his services as Team Lead, HardwareEngineer was confirmed on 6.10.2008 and he workedtill 2014 when the respondent-company abruptlyrefused his services. It is also not in dispute that thepetitioner issued legal notice to the respondent- company for appointment of Arbitrator and the samewas rightly agreed by the respondent by a reply dated11.1.2017.
4. In view of the above, there is no impediment toappoint the Sole Arbitrator in terms of Clause 7 of theWorker Confidentiality & Assignment Agreement dated13.7.2009 which reads as under:
'7. Dispute Resolution:
Any dispute arising out of or in connectionwith this agreement shall be first referredto arbitration in accordance with theprovisions of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 or any enactment ofstatutory modification thereof. Thearbitration proceedings shall be in theEnglish language and shall be held inBangalore. Subject to the precedingparagraph, the courts in Bangalore shallhave exclusive jurisdiction over anydispute, differences or claims arising out ofthis agreement.'
5. For the reasons stated above, this CivilMiscellaneous Petition is allowed. Sri K.M. Thammaiah,Retired Principal District and Sessions Judge isappointed as t
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
he Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate thedispute under Clause 7 of the of the WorkerConfidentiality & Assignment Agreement dated13.7.2009 entered into between the parties and inaccordance with law. 6. Registry is directed to send a copy of this orderto the Arbitrator, Sri K.M. Thammaiah, Retired PrincipalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Bangalore as well as to theArbitration Centre for reference.