IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.04.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Arb.OP.No.9 of 2024 M/s. Nian Media Private Limited, Represented by its General Manager, Mr.Paul Kenny M D, Corporate Office at 118-E, Velachery Main Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ... Petitioner Vs.

R. Prabakar ...Respondent PRAYER : The Original Petition has been filed under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a Sole Arbitrator for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent in respect of the Employment Contract dated 13.11.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Karthik For Respondent : Mr.Sanjay Pinto

O R D E R

This Original Petition has been filed, taking advantage of Section 11(5)

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes between the petitioner M/s. Nian Media Private Limited at Guindy, Chennai and the Respondent R.Prabakar residing at Aminjikarai, Chennai with respect to an Employment Contract dated

13.11.2021.

2. The Employment Contract has been produced as a document to the petition. But what it actually reflects is that is is an Annexure and that too, Annexure-A of the Employment Contract. The contract as such has not been produced. Whether there are further Annexures to such contract has not been disclosed. This particular document which has been enclosed is not the agreement in entirety.

3. Be that as it may, the petitioner claims to operate a You Tube Channel and Face book page under the name of “Behindwoods”, which is owned by M/s. Nian Media Private Limited claiming to be a pioneer in digital media. They claim that they have spent more than 20 years of time, energy and money in painstakingly building new and original content strategies, designs, programs and various other mechanisms, processes and human resource management techniques to administer and run a digital media organization.

4. The respondent had joined the 'Practical Learning Program' as trainee for a remuneration of Rs.20,000/- per month and at the end of six months he was appointed as a News Producer in the petitioner's company. The petitioner states that the respondent had agreed and accepted to abide by the Employment Contract dated 13.11.2021. It must be immediately again pointed out that what has been produced before this Court is not the entire contract between the petitioner and the respondent, but rather an Annexure-A to the said contract. It is not known whether there are further Annexures in that particular agreement or terms of agreement between the petitioner and the respondent.

5. It is stated that the petitioner company had provided extensive training to the respondent and it is also stated that the respondent was exposed to confidential information, technical know-how and formulae which belonged to the petitioner company, all of which are proprietary information, having developed exclusively by the petitioner company. The respondent then absented himself from duty from 07.02.2023 and gave various reasons and finally submitted a resignation letter and was relieved from his post on 06.02.2023.

6. The petitioner then found that the respondent had joined another company on 01.08.2023 and also alleged that the respondent had been working with the competitor company namely Rednool from 21.02.2023. It is claimed that this was a breach of the terms of agreement and further it is very specifically alleged that the respondent was trying to wean out employees of the petitioner to join that particular competitor company namely Rednool. Unfortunately, the names of those employees of the petitioner who had been so approached by the respondent have not been stated. The manner in which the respondent had approached the said employees have not been stated. The dates on which the respondent had approached the said employees have not been stated. The positions the employees held, which the respondent thoughts would be adva