JUDGMENT :

R. Subbiah, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of the Judgment and Decree dated 02.09.2014 passed by the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 463 of 2012. By the said Judgment, the learned single Judge allowed the original Petition No. 463 of 2012 filed by the petitioner therein by modifying the award passed by the Arbitrator under claim No. 12 to the effect that the petitioner therein is entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 1,68,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Eight Lakhs Only) payable by the first respondent therein.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the learned single Judge, the first respondent therein namely M/s. ISG Nova soft Technologies Limited has filed O.S.A. No. 59 of 2015 questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in enhancing the compensation amount in relation to claim No. 12.

3. As against the very same order dated 02.09.2014 passed in O.P. No. 463 of 2012, the petitioner therein/claimant has filed O.S.A. No. 181 of 2015 seeking further enhancement of the compensation with respect to disallowed portion of the claim petition.

4. Thus, both these appeals are inter-twined and/or inter-related with each other and therefore, they are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common Judgment.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as 'appellant' and 'first respondent' as they were arrayed in O.S.A. No. 181 of 2015.

6. A perusal of the claim made by the appellant in her claim petition before the Arbitrator would indicate that she has filed the claim petition seeking compensation under 12 heads to the tune of Rs. 28,88,55,500. The foundation for the appellant to file the claim petition is elucidated in the following paragraphs.

7. According to the appellant, she entered into an employment agreement with the first respondent company on 10.03.2006, as per which she was appointed as Vice President (M&A Integration Strategy) with effect from 27.04.2006. As per the said agreement, the first respondent company would impart training to the appellant in various subjects such as general management, finance, business strategy and project management during the first year of employment. The agreement also contemplates that during the first year of employment, the appellant has to work in Chennai and thereafter, she would be transferred to United States of America. The agreement also contains an arbitration clause, with the seat of Arbitration at Chennai. Clause 6 of the employment agreement deals with procedure for termination of employment, while Clause 6.2 stipulates that the employer is entitled to terminate the employment agreement by giving notice to the other party (120 days in advance) in writing and a severance compensation equivalent to one year's gross salary inclusive of maximum bonus payouts at the time of severance from the company. However, clause 6.3 indicates that if either of the party to the agreement intends to terminate the agreement within three months of employment due to dissatisfaction or disagreement or discontentment, as the case may be, the employee shall receive four months gross salary as compensation.

8. According to the appellant, within a few months of her joining the first respondent company, she noticed that there was a change in the behaviour pattern of Krishna Srinivasan, who was working as Chief Executive Officer in the company and he made sexist and derogatory remarks about her physique and dress sense. The appellant, unable to tolerate the behaviour of Krishna Srinivasan, tendered her resignation on 24.07.2006. Surprised by the letter of resignation of the appellant, the said Krishna Srinivasan apologised to the appellant and insisted the appellant to revoke her letter of resignation by stating that she was a valuable and irreplaceable asset to the first respondent company. Moved by such gesture, t