JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 30.10.2012, passed in Arbitration O.P.No.305 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, confirming the award, dated

30.04.2010, passed by the second respondent in Arbitration No.6 of 2009.

2.The appellants herein are the respondents and the respondents herein are the petitioners in the original petition in Arbitration No.6 of 2009. Arbitration O.P. No.305 of 2010 was filed against the award, in Arbitration No.6 of 2009, dated 30.04.2010.

3.Brief substance of the petition, in Arbitration O.P.No.6 of 2009, is as follows:

3.1.The petitioner is a registered company registered with Registrar of Companies and it is dealing in computer design, development, manufacture of VLSI Chip sets, Device Drivers and related intellectual properties. The petitioner engaged Associators, who are Engineering Graduates by entering into an intellectual property agreement and instill them training on their intellectual properties, which is very rare in India. The agreement is a commercial one, under section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

3.2.One Selvi joined the Company, as an Associator and she entered into an intellectual property agreement, dated 14.08.2008. Her father is one Chandrahasan, who stood as surety in the agreement. Selvi joined duty in the petitioner company, situated at 10, Montieth Road, Egmore. She was given training by giving her access to their intellectual properties as part of their investment. She agreed to repay the same by way of technical contribution to the petitioner for a period of three years. As per clause (1) of the agreement, she has to associate with the Company for a minimum period of three years. But, she never reported to duty since, 12.04.2009 and she has committed a violation of Clause (1) of the agreement and she has to pay the penalty.

4.Brief substance of the objection filed by the respondents, Arbitration O.P.No.6 of 2009, is as follows:-

There was no valid Arbitration agreement. Arbitration agreement is one sided. The agreement is only an exploitation, which is against the public policy. There was no provision for proceedings against the Company. No transfer is made in imparting the alleged training as stated in the Arbitration. No chances to know the contents of the agreement was given. Name of the Arbitrator was not disclosed in the agreement. The agreement is silent over the particulars for arriving the claim Rs.10,00,000/- for the breach of the alleged agreement. The company has gained Data bases developed by the first respondent. The petitioner has not imparted or instilled any training. No salary was paid to the first respondent and she was compelled to work in the office, late in the nights hours. Therefore, she stopped from the work. There is no Arbitrable issue involved in the matter. The petitioner is holding all the Educational Certificates of the first respondent. The agreement was obtained by undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation and it was the harassment in the course of employment, which compelled the first respondent to leave office.

5.The Arbitrator passed an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Against the same, Selvi and her father/Chandrahasan filed Arbitration O.P.No.305 of 2010 before the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi. 6.Brief substance of the Arbitration O.P.No.304 of 2010, is as follows:-

The Tribunal failed to appreciate the case of the revision petitioners and failed to consider the averments made in the counter. The execution of the agreement was questioned by the revision petitioners, but, the same was not answered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal failed to consider the petition under Sections 12 and 13 of the Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act and failed to call for the documents requested by the petitioners. Service of the first petitioner was extracted as an employer and not as a trainee. The award is a biased one. No notice was issued towards