LexDUSHYANT JANBANDHU versus M/S HYUNDAI AUTOEVER INDIA PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 492 : 2024 INSC 966 Dushyant Janbandhu v. M/s Hyundai Autoever India Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 14299 of 2024) 11 December 2024 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed an arbitrator. Whether the disputes relating to non- payment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination order were arbitrable. Headnotes† Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – ss.15(2), 22 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(A) – Disputes relating to non-payment of wages and the legality and validity of the termination order, if arbitrable: Held: No – Disputes related to non-payment of wages and legality and propriety of termination which are non-arbitrable and the appellant approached the statutory authorities under the PW Act and the ID Act much prior to the filing of petition under Section 11(6) by the respondent and thus, the disputes were anyway pending before the statutory authorities which would exercise their jurisdiction to the exclusion of civil courts – Further, the alleged violation of clause 19 of the appointment order relating to non-disclosure obligation was only an afterthought as it was not raised in the show cause notice, inquiry report, chargesheet and termination order and as such is non-existent – Section 11(6) petition filed by the respondent was an abuse of process intended to threaten the appellant for having approached the statutory authorities under the PW Act and the ID Act – Judgment of High Court set aside – Petition filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act dismissed with cost – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. [Paras 17, 12, 14, 18] Case Law Cited Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation [2020] 11 SCR 1001 : (2021) 2 SCC 1 – relied on. * Author [2024] 12 S.C.R. 493 Dushyant Janbandhu v. M/s Hyundai Autoever India Pvt. Ltd. Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd. [2019] 17 SCR 275 : (2020) 20 SCC 760 – referred to. List of Acts Payment of Wages Act, 1936; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. List of Keywords Non-payment of wages; Termination order; Legality and validity of the termination order; Disputes whether arbitrable; Disputes non-arbitrable; Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936; Industrial Court; Charge memo; Non-cooperation; Absenteeism; Disciplinary action; Jurisdiction to the exclusion of the civil courts; Arbitration agreement; Arbitrator unilaterally appointed; Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Alleged violation of non-disclosure obligation; Appointment order; Bar of Suits; Statutory authorities; Abuse of process; Show cause notice; Inquiry report, Chargesheet; Compensation. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14299 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Arb O.P No. 31 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Anurag Ojha, Kamlesh K Mishra, Dipak Raj, Advs. for the Appellant. Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Shivang Goel, Ishaan Aggarwal, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave Granted. 2. Questioning the appointment of an arbitrator by the High Court of Madras under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation 494 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Act, 1996,1 by the order impugned before us,2 the appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that the dispute with the respondent- employer, M/S Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd. is governed by statute under the Payment of Wages Act, 19363 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.4 In the normal course and in recognition of judicial restraint, as incorporated in Section 5 of the Act, we would have asked the appellant to raise these objections before the Arbitral Tribunal itself. However, as the following narration of facts speaks for itself, we have found that the application under Section 11 of the Act is a clear abuse of the remedial process. We have therefore allowed the appeal and dismissed the Section 11(6) petition with cost. 3. The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Manager on 15.03.2019. Within a year, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the appellant was asked to work from home fro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.