The court emphasized the binding nature of the employment contract and the Letter of Appointment, and upheld the arbitration award balancing equities.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

This intra court appeal by Pinnacle Air Pvt. Ltd. under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) impugns order dated 10.02.2016 passed by the Learned Single Judge upholding the Award dated 31.10.2015 awarding US $ 34000/- to the respondent, Captain Richard Sloan Norris, with simple interest @10% from 1st June, 2012 till realization.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent had committed frauds. Firstly, the respondent had concealed his sickness/ailment. Secondly, the respondent was negotiating with three other parties, namely, Electrosteel group, Kalyan Family and Titan. Thirdly, the respondent had procured Foreign Aircrew Temporary Aviation (FATA) Certificate by paying bribe. On merits, it is submitted, that the Letter of Appointment in favour of the respondent was issued in order to enable him to secure Indian Visa and no legal rights and liabilities had accrued. Further, the respondent had breached clauses 5.2 and 5.3 of the said contract, as he did not have license to fly Phenom 100 Aircraft in India in the absence to valid FATA certificate and also on account of his medical condition. It was submitted that the Award was contradictory.

3. We have perused the Award and contentions raised but do not find any good ground and reason to interfere and set aside the findings and direction against the appellant.

4. Arbitration Award is detailed, and does justice by balancing equities. The Arbitration Award substantially rejects claims of the respondent of US $ 371,109.77 including salary of US$ 8000 per month till February, 2013, claim for expenses incurred, compensation for loss of opportunity, mental harassment and interest. Respondent has been awarded salary of US$ 8000 per month from 11th November,2011 i.e. the date on which the Visa was granted, till 12th April, 2012 i.e. the date on which the respondent had left India.

5. The Letter of Appointment dated 12th October, 2011 is undisputed. The Letter of Appointment was signed and executed by the appellant through their authorised signatory and by the respondent. Appellant and respondent had simultaneously signed the detailed contract with different clauses including the arbitration clause. Appellant had appointed the respondent as Captain of Phenom 100 Aircraft on monthly salary of US $ 8000 with effect from 12th October, 2011. Appellant had admittedly paid US $ 6000 to the respondent after issue of the Letter of Appointment for undergoing four day recurrent training in Texas, United States of America. The respondent had obtained employment Visa to fly Phenom 100 aircraft in India on the basis of the said letter of appointment and terms of contract. Paragraph 9 of the Award states that the appellant had not denied entering into an employment contract with the respondent. It was also recorded that the appellant had always told the respondent to adhere to the terms of the contract. Mails written by the appellant to the Indian missions state that the respondent was inducted as an employee in service of the appellant. Award in paragraph 25 holds that the agreement/contract of employment was binding and enforceable. Respondent had undergone recurrent training and having a valid foreign license had applied for FATA to comply with the contract. Respondent had written e-mails in December, 2011 and January, 2012 about acute financial distress. Appellant had never communicated that the contract was cancelled or terminated. Appellant had stated that acquisition of the aircraft was delayed.

6. The contention of the appellant that the respondent was in touch with Captain Sakeer C.Sheik and had also written communications to Electro steel, Kalyan family and Titan is correct but this factum has to be understood in the factual context of the present case. The

respondent had reached India on 1st April, 2012. The appellant had not been able to secure and purchase Phenom 100 Aircraft, though the respondent was in employment wi