Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 1898
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
SHAMPA SARKAR, J
SREEPRAD BHIWANIWALA – Appellant
Versus
GRANT THORNTON US KNOWLEDGE AND CAPABILITY CENTER INDIA PVT. LTD. – Respondent
AP No. 62 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Ms. Sriparna Mitra, Mr. Sayan Banerjee, Ms. Sayani Gupta
For the Respondents: Mr. Suhail Sehgal
Employment contracts with arbitration clauses are binding, and disputes related to termination must be resolved through arbitration as stipulated in contract terms.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Clause 16 of the Employment Terms - Dispute arising from termination of employment without notice - The petitioner claims wrongful termination linked to sexual harassment complaint, while the respondent asserts validity under employment terms - Court finds arbitration clause applicable and appoints arbitrator to resolve dispute. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Employment law - Terminability of private employment contracts - Validity of termination provisions in employment contract - Jurisdiction of arbitrators to determine disputes of private employment is reaffirmed; employer’s compliance with contract terms is sufficient to uphold termination. (Paras 4-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Senior Manager, claims wrongful termination based on unproven allegations related to a co-employee's complaint, arguing for arbitration to address his employment dispute.
Findings of Court:
The court holds that the dispute should be referred to an arbitrator as per the agreed arbitration clause in the employment contract, implying that potential issues regarding arbitrability can be raised later.
Issues: Main issues include the validity of termination under employment terms and whether the disputes fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The existence of an arbitration clause obligates referral to arbitration, emphasizing party autonomy in private employment matters while affirming the limited scope for judicial intervention.
Result: Application disposed of appointing the arbitrator to resolve the ongoing dispute.
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR Date 30th June, 2025 Appearance:-
Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Ms. Sriparna Mitra, Adv. Mr. Sayan Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Sayani Gupta, Adv.
... for petitioner Mr. Suhail Sehgal, Adv,(VC)
... for respondent The Court:- This is an application for appointment of a learned Arbitrator on the basis of the dispute resolution clause, being Clause 16 of the terms and conditions of Employment. The said terms and conditions of employment were set out in Annexure “A” of the appointment letter of the petitioner dated February 27, 2023. The respondent issued the letter. The dispute arose when the petitioner was terminated. The letter of termination was issued on November 22, 2024. The ground for termination was “business reasons”.
The petitioner submits that he was appointed as a Senior Manager in Audit, at Grant Thornton. The terms and conditions under Annexure “A” was forwarded to the petitioner along with the appointment letter and the petitioner was required to sign the same and submit the Annexure to the employer.
Accordingly, the terms and conditions became a binding contract between employer and employee. The terms and conditions provided for resolution of disputes through arbitration. The seat had been selected as Kolkata. The language was `English’.
The case as narrated by the petitioner is that on June 28, 2024, a show cause notice was issued on the basis of certain allegations levelled by another female employee. The petitioner filed a reply. Upon enquiry, a report was submitted on October 22, 2024. The notice of termination was issued on November 22, 2024. The petitioner’s specific case is that although the allegation of sexual harassment had not been established, the petitioner has reason to believe that the termination was the outcome of the complaint lodged by another employee and not a simpliciter termination.
The petitioner requested the respondent to recall the order of termination. The petitioner called upon the employer by a notice dated January 2, 2025, to refer the dispute to arbitration. The petitioner also nominated a learned Senior Advocate as an Arbitrator.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the terms and conditions provided that an employee may be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reasons upon payment of 60 days gross salary, the termination in this case was a reaction or a counter-blast to the proceedings initiated by a co-employee. The termination had adversely affected the reputation of the petitioner and was wrongful. Thus, the petitioner has a right to get such dispute adjudicated by a forum agreed to by the parties, under clause 16 of the terms and conditions of employment. The terms and conditions is in the nature of a contract between the employer and employee.
Mr. Sehgal, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that the petitioner’s employment is not statutorily protected. Neither Article 311 of the Constitution of India nor any other statute covers the employment. This is a case of private employment. The employer retains the right to terminate the petitioner with or without notice and the terms of employment has been followed. The law is well-settled that, the petitioner does not have any other claim towards the employer. As long as the 60 days gross salary is paid to the petitioner in lieu of the notice, the termination is valid.
Reliance is placed on the decisions of:- Emaar India Ltd. Vs. Tarun Aggarwal Projects LLP and Ors., reported in AIR 2022 SC 4678 ; G4S Security Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dhiraj Negi, reported in Manu/DE/3030/2018 ; L.M. Khosla Vs. Thai Airways International Public Company Limited and Ors., reported Manu/DE/3868/2012; SDU Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vipin Sharma, reported in Manu/De/1242/2017; Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manorama Sirsi, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1373, Hitachi Plant Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjib Kumar Jena and Ors., reported in (2019) 194 PLR 94; GE Capital Transportati
