Delhi High Court
Capt. Abeed Syed vs Pawan Hans Ltd. & Anr. on 18 November, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 18, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 10121/2015 & C.M. No.24913/2015
CAPT. ABEED SYED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Setu Niket and Ms. Esha
Mazumdar, Advocates
versus
PAWAN HANS LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Taneja, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Puneet Taneja, Mr. H.
Banerjee and Ms. Shaheen,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Non-acceptance of petitioner's resignation from service is assailed
in this petition. Impugned order of 22nd September, 2015 (Annexure P-1)
notes that petitioner is under Service Bond obligation to serve under the
first respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that maximum
amount of Service Bond obligation is `25 lac and the Service Bond was
for a period of 5 years and till now petitioner has served for a period of
almost 3 years and on instructions, it is submitted that petitioner is ready
to deposit a sum of `8 lac towards Service Bond obligation without
prejudice to rights of the petitioner as the expenditure incurred in training
of petitioner on a different helicopter, was of `5 lac.
Learned senior counsel for respondent has placed on record a chart
giving approximate cost involved in imparting training to petitioner and
on its perusal, it becomes evident that respondent has incurred cost of
`25.40 lacs in training petitioner. Learned senior counsel for respondent
has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 14 of the Service
Agreement Bond (Annexure P-3) to point out that any dispute in respect
of the Service Bond in question is arbitrable and so, petitioner be
relegated to avail of the remedy to seek arbitration. To submit that in
contractual matters, writ petition is not maintainable, reliance was placed
upon Apex Court's decision in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v.
Union of India and Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 728.
To controvert the stand taken on behalf of respondent, learned
counsel for petitioner had relied upon Apex Court's decision in People's
Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR
1982 SC 1473 to submit that the Service Bond in question entails forced
labour, which negates the fundamental rights of petitioner and it is
submitted that petitioner is ready to go for arbitration in respect of the
amount of the Service Bond to be refunded, but first resignation should
be accepted right away.
Learned senior counsel for respondent refutes the stand taken on
behalf of petitioner and submits that it cannot be done in piecemeal and
respondent is ready to accept petitioner's resignation provided Service
Bond amount of `25 lacs is deposited by petitioner as he has not served
for the period of five years as agreed upon between the parties and so, the
decision relied upon by petitioner is of no avail because there is no
question of any forced labour in the instant case.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the Service Agreement Bond
(Annexure P-3), impugned order of 29th September, 2015 refusing to
accept petitioner's resignation, the material on record and the decisions
cited, I find that the decision of Apex Court in People's Union for
Democratic Rights (supra) is of no avail because there is no question of
petitioner being subjected to any forced labour. The Service Bond
Agreement (Annexure P-3) in question cannot be said to be one sided and
to the detriment of petitioner because as per the chart shown to this Court,
expenses of more than `25 lacs have been incurred upon petitioner's
training.
During the course of hearing, it was submitted that petitioner had
not opted for training on a different helicopter and so, the expenses for
petitioner's training on a different helicopter cannot be taken into
consideration. In this regard, it would be worthwhile to refer to the
Service Bond Agreement which clearly provides that the Service Bond of
`25 lacs is not negotiable. There cannot be any piecemeal settlement of
the dispute raised in respect of the Service Bond in question. Clearly,
Clause 13 of the Service Bond mandates that any dispute in respect of
such Service Bond is arbitrable. Apex Court in Joshi Technologies
(supra) has reiterated that writ petition in relation to contractual matters
are not to be entertained unless there is public law character attached to it.
In the instant case, there is no public character attached to the Service
Bond in question. Since petitioner has an alternate and efficacious
remedy to seek arbitration in respect of the Service Bond in question,
therefore, this writ petition is disposed of as not maintainable while
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 18, 2015
s
