Delhi High Court
Sandeep Kumar Jha vs M/S Fiitjee Ltd. on 23 February, 2022
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23.02.2022
+ ARB.P. 1191/2021
SANDEEP KUMAR JHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Advocate (appearance not given)
Versus
M/S FIITJEE LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raaj Malhotra & Mr. J. Karan
Malhtra, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11
(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of
Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes with respondent.
2. Petitioner claims to be holding degree in B.Sc (Hons) and M.Sc. in
Physics and carrying ample experience in teaching and imparting education
to students who have been preparing for competitive entrance examinations
for engineering and medical course after completing their senior secondary
school. According to petitioner, respondent is a limited company
incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in
training the students for competitive exams such as IIT-JEE, various
Olympiads, school exams and board exams etc.
3. Petitioner claims that vide appointment letter dated 04.12.2009,
respondent employed the petitioner at the post of "Professor A2" in Physics
Department for imparting education to the students. The appointment letter
contained the Service Rules for the Employees dated 04.12.2009, Code of
conduct for Employees of FIITJEE and Pay, Allowances & Perquisites
Policy of FIITJEE Members and Clause- 36(a) thereof contained that any
dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitration. Petitioner joined
the services of the respondent on 21.10.2010 on probation basis.
4. Petitioner further claims that he worked with utmost commitment and
diligence and respondent after seeing the hard work and dedication of the
petitioner vide letter dated 19.07.2013 revised the salary of petitioner w.e.f.
16.07.2013. Thereafter, petitioner was appointed as the Acting Head of the
Physics Department vide letter dated 09.10.2013. Thereafter, petitioner
received another appraisal from the respondent w.e.f. 01.10.2015 and also
offered an Award on 26.09.2015. Again, the respondent revised the
salary/CTC of petitioner w.e.f. 25.06.2017. However, for certain personal
reasons, the petitioner sought resignation on 29.11.2018 from the
respondent. However, in the meantime, respondent issued a Show Cause
Notice dated 24.01.2019 to the petitioner, which was duly replied by him on
25.01.2019. Thereafter, petitioner was relieved on 31.01.2020. However,
thereafter petitioner waited for reimbursement of his full and final settlement
amount but it was of no use. Petitioner claims that despite reminders dated
04.06.2019 to 21.06.2021, respondent has failed to clear the dues of
petitioner.
5. According to petitioner, when all the efforts and requests for the
outstanding dues failed, petitioner sent a legal notice dated 09.09.2021 to the
respondent invoking arbitration in terms of Clause 36(a) of the service rules.
However, respondent did not reply to the same, hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has disputes the
claims raised in the present petition, however, fairly conceded that the
disputes inter se parties are arbitrable. Learned counsel also submitted that
respondent has no objection if disputes are referred to an independent
arbitrator appointed by this Court.
7. Accordingly, Mr. Sachin Dutta, Senior Advocate (Mobile:
9810032822) is appointed the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute
between the parties.
8. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth
Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
9. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
10. The present petition and pending application, if any, are accordingly
disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 23, 2022
r
