1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.06 OF 2004

Indicus Software Pvt.Ltd.

Petitioner

Vs.

Ms.Radhika Kelapure

Respondent

Ms.Lalita Panchakshari for petitioner.

Mr.Geogy Jacob for respondent.

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.

January 27, 2006.

P.C.

1.

Heard Mrs.Panchakshari, the learned counsel

for

the

petitioner-Company.

The

respondent

was

appointed

initially

as

a

software

trainee

on

probation

for

six

months

and

her

appointment

was

confirmed

on

11th

August

2002

on

the

same

terms

and

conditions

which

were

set

out

in

the

earlier

appointment.

On

11th

Decemeber

2002

a

notarised

minimum

tenure

agreement

was

placed

before

her

which

she

signed

and

one

of

the

clauses

in

the

said

agreement

pertained

to

the

respondent’s

commitment

to

work

at

least

for

a

minimum

period

of

one

and

half

years with effect from the date of confirmation i.e.

11-8-2002.

2

2.

However, by a letter dated 25th April 2003 the

respondent

informed

that

due

to

some

unavoidable

reasons

it

would

not

be

possible

to

remain

in

the

employment

of

the

petitioner

any

further

and,

therefore,

she

requested

for

being

relieved

on

30th

April

2003.

In

response,

the

petitioner

vide

its

letter

dated

6th

May

2003

turned

down

the

request

to

accept

the

resignation

and

called

upon

her

to

reimburse

the

costs

incurred

and

also

to

pay

the

liquidated

damages

to

the

extent

of

Rs.2

lakhs

in

terms

of

the

minimum

tenure

agreement.

The

respondent

by

her

letter

dated

15th

May

2003

agreed

to

pay

the

salary

of

three

months

in

lieu

of

notice.

This

petition

has

been

filed

invoking

the

clause

of

arbitration in the minimum tenure agreement i.e.

clause no.10.

3.

It is noted that the said clause no.10 is part

of

the

appointment

letter

dated

11th

February

2002

and

it

has

been

corrected

and

signed

on

11-12-2002

after

it

was

notarised.

The

said

document

cannot

be

termed

as

a

commercial

relationship

of

contract

between

the

petitioner

on

the

one

hand

and

the

respondent

on

the

other

hand.

It

was

clear

that

between

the

parties

there

was

a

relationship

of

3

employer/employee

and

the

grievance

raised

in

this

application

could

be

at

the

most

termed

as

an

industrial

dispute

which

requires

to

be

resolved

by

invoking the remedy available under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

4.

The application is hereby rejected as not

maintainable under Section 11 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996.

(B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)