JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioner places reliance on an Employment Contract dated January 20, 2021, allegedly entered into by the petitioner with the respondent-Company, where the petitioner was an employee. Clause 20 of the same, in particular sub-clauses 20.1 and 20.5, provide for arbitration in case of any dispute or controversy arising between the parties in relation to or in connection with or arising out of the contract.

2. The respondent-Company opposes the prayer for reference to arbitration primarily on the ground that the Employment Contract is a manufactured document and was never entered into by the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner was appointed in the month of December, 2020 vide Offer Letter dated December 20, 2020, sent via e-Mail. The e-Mail indicates that the petitioner was offered the position of General Manager with the respondent-Company. However, vide e-Mail dated March 26, 2021, annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent, it is seen that the petitioner asked for a revision of his designation in the appointment letter from “General Manager” to “Chief Executive Officer.” Thus, it is seen that there was no existence of any Employment Contract, nor was the same referred to in the said e-Mail.

4. It is argued that the purported Employment Contract is a forged document, which vitiates the alleged arbitration clause itself. The act of forgery, it is alleged, was committed by the petitioner in the garb of creating „standard employment contracts? for existing and new employees, whereas while working towards creation of templates for the rest of the employees, the petitioner created a different document for himself by perpetrating fraud. The petitioner was all along employed by the respondent-Company at the post of General Manager and he was entrusted to oversee and manage the day to day working of the Company. Owing to his position he had significance influence and command over employees under him, taking advantage of which the petitioner manufactured the contract, it is alleged.

5. A notice of termination dated August 11, 2022 was served upon the petitioner by the Company in accordance with the terms and conditions of the offer letter dated December 29, 2020, which was the guiding document/agreement in respect of the terms of employment.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner transferred huge amounts of money fraudulently, for which the petitioner is liable to face criminal prosecution. It is further alleged that Mr. Aniruddha Bakshi, who was another employee of the Company, facilitated the creation/forging of the document.

7. Hence, the plinth of the argument of the respondent is that the document containing the purported arbitration clause was forged.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner controverts such submissions and argues that no particulars of fraud have been pleaded in the affidavit-in-opposition by the respondents. It is submitted that the allegation of fraud has to be decided by the Arbitrator, when appointed. It is further argued that initially the respondent-Company had relied on the Employment Contract in its reply to the claim of the petitioner but later seeks to deny the same.

9. Learned counsel further argues that the existence of the Employment Contract is not ex facie improbable, since the same could very well be handed over even after the appointment letter.

10. Learned counsel cites an unreported judgment of this Court in Rajia Begum Vs. Barnali Mukherjee and others dated September 24, 2021 in support of the proposition that the question of fraud can be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. Under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 1996 Act”), the Tribunal can decide on the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement itself and has ample powers under Sections 26 and 27 to appoint experts and to take assistance of the Court in taking evidence, if necessary, to