Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 1176
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Dushyant Janbandhu – Appellant
Versus
M/s Hyundai Autoever India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14299 of 2024 @ SLP (Civil) No. 29929 of 2024 @ Diary No. 34174 OF 2023
Decided On : 11-12-2024
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anurag Ojha, AOR Mr. Kamlesh K Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dipak Raj, Adv. Mr. Vipul Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Industrial disputes are non-arbitrable and have separate legal mechanism for their redressal.
Headnote:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – Section 22 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(A) – Appointment of Arbitrator – Challenge as to – Disputes between appellant and respondent, as indicated in arbitration petition relate to non-payment of wages and also legality and validity of termination order – Over and above these disputes, for the first time respondent sought to give a new angle to dispute by stating that appellant has also violated non-disclosure obligations under Clause 19 of appointment order – High Court has proceeded to note arbitration agreement and appointed an Advocate as Arbitrator – Section 22 of PW Act bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Equally, legality of order of termination within jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal under Section 2(A) of ID Act – Jurisdiction of Industrial Court is also to exclusion of Civil Courts and is not arbitrable – Judgment and order passed by High Court set aside and petition under Section 11(6) filed by respondent dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 15 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Questioning appointment of Arbitrator by High Court of Madras under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by order impugned, appellant has filed this appeal on ground that dispute with respondent-employer, M/S Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd. is governed by statute under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Findings of Court:
Section 11(6) petition has two facets. First relates to disputes that were anyway pending before statutory authorities, and they related to non-payment of wages and legality and propriety of termination which are non-arbitrable. Second facet relates to alleged violation of clause 19 relating to non-disclosure obligation, which was not raised in show cause notice, inquiry report, charge-sheet and termination order and as such is non-existent.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave Granted.
2. Questioning the appointment of an arbitrator by the High Court of Madras under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.], by the order impugned before us2[Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Arb O.P. No. 31 of 2022 dated 20.12.2022], the appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that the dispute with the respondent-employer, M/S Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd. is governed by statute under the Payment of Wages Act, 19363[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘PW Act’] and the Industrial Disputes Act, 19474[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘ID Act’.]. In the normal course and in recognition of judicial restraint, as incorporated in Section 5 of the Act, we would have asked the appellant to raise these objections before the Arbitral Tribunal itself. However, as the following narration of facts speaks for itself, we have found that the application under Section 11 of the Act is a clear abuse of the remedial process. We have therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed the Section 11(6) petition with cost.
3. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Manager on 15.03.2019. Within a year, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the appellant was asked to work from home from 22.03.2020 to 06.01.2021. However, the respondent called upon the appellant to resume physical attendance of office from August 2020. As the appellant refused to comply, a show cause notice was issued on 04.09.2020, followed by an inquiry, report of which is in the following terms;
“Conclusion
• There has been prima facie evidence against Dushyant for his purposeful absenteeism to work and its impact on Company’s business and Customer relations.
• Possibility of too due to his absenteeism. A detailed Charge sheet can be issued to Mr. Dushyant and refer to Disciplinary committee to take final decision.
• Till the final decision, he should attend office regularly as per the roster.
• If he is having access from remote, those days should be recorded separately by his HOS.
• Based on the final decision of the disciplinary committee further action can be taken.”
4. The inquiry led to issuance of a charge memo on 25.11.2020 for violating certain contractual clauses and these related to non- cooperation and absenteeism. It is necessary to mention here itself that there is no reference to Clause 195[“You will not give out to any one, by word of mouth or otherwise, particulars of HAEI’s business or an administrative or organizational matter of a confidential nature which may be your privilege to know by virtue of you being HAEI’’s employee.”] of the appointment conditions relating to violation of the non-disclosure obligation. Ultimately, an order of termination was passed on 21.01.2021, the relevant portion of the said order of termination is important for our consideration and it is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference.
“Please refer our Show Cause Notices dated 4th Sep 2020, Emails dated (05th Aug, 03rd Sep, 07 Sep 2020 & 07 Jan 2021) and the charge sheet dated (26 Nov 2020). You have continued to remain absent at work premises without authorisation and also you did not present yourself for our enquiry meetings called for as per our disciplinary Policy. Considering all the above, as per your agreed employment terms Clause 11, 12(V), 17, 24 & 25, your employment has been terminated with effective from the closing hours of 06 Jan 2021. […]”
5. It is evident from the above that there is no allegation whatsoever that the appellant has violated clause 19 of the appointment order leading to the order of termination.
6. During the pendency of disciplinary action, as the appellant was not paid his salary, he issued a legal notice for payment of wages on 29.05.2021 and filed a petition under Section 15(2) of the PW Act before the authority under the PW Act. As a counterblast, the respondent issued a notice alleging that the disputes must be settle
