Courts should enforce the terms of Arbitration Agreement and not recast it: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) in the case of Libra Automotive Pvt. Ltd. (“Libra”) v. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. (“BMW“) has emphasized that Courts should seek to ensure that the parties adhere to the choice of arbitrator or to the mechanism for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal according to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement as opposed to recast the terms of the Agreement.
Libra entered into multiple agreements with BMW during the appointment of Libra as a dealer for BMW’s products. Libra approached the Court to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to decide a dispute which arose between itself and BMW, to enforce the Arbitration Agreement. The arbitration clauses were separate and distinct in the aforementioned agreements. Libra invoked the arbitration clause and requested BMW to either appoint a common Arbitrator or approach the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”) for appointment of a sole Arbitrator, and subsequently approached the Court since BMW did not respond.
Quick View:
This judgment highlights that in the presence of multiple Agreements with distinct arbitration clauses, the arbitration proceedings under two respective contracts can commence and continue independently. Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Court to appoint Arbitrators but the Court should only enforce the terms provided in the Agreement and not act on its own volition.
No back wages for employees who remain absent without employer’s authorization: SC
The Supreme Court of India (“SC”) in the case of Chief Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. (“Employer”) v. Siraj Uddin Khan (“Respondent”) held that an employee is not entitled to be paid if he/she is absent without any justification or without the order of the employer.
The Employer appealed against the Allahabad High Court (“HC”) order which directed it to pay the salary to the Respondent. The Employer contended that the Respondent was absent from work and therefore he should not be paid for it. There were multiple instances prior to this appeal where the disciplinary authorities and lower courts held that the Respondent is guilty of unauthorized absence from work and is not entitled to his salary. However, the HC directed the payment of his salary on the basis of its findings. The employee absented himself from work during the period when HC directed payment of salary and therefore, the SC held that he was not entitled for payment of salary on the principle of “No Work No Pay”.
Quick View:
When an employee claims for back wages due to his unauthorized absence, the principle of No Work No Pay can be applied on him due to such absence. The employers cannot be directed to pay wages for the period that the employee was absent without any justification.
Costs imposed on woman for false sexual harassment complaints by Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court (“Court”) in the case of Anita Suresh (“Plaintiff”) v. Union of India imposed costs of INR 50,000 on the Plaintiff, who challenged an order of the Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC”). The Plaintiff sought direction to her employer to withhold the retirement benefits of the accused.
The Petitioner made a written complaint to Director General of ESI Corporation i.e., her employers indicating that her fellow employee misbehaved and made attempts of sexual advances. The ICC was constituted to examine the complaint. The ICC could not establish the allegations and therefore recommended to transfer the accused as well as the Petitioner. The accused superannuated in 2015 and the Plaintiff sought direction from the court to her employer to withhold any retirement benefits given to the accused.
The Court examined the petition as well as the original complaint filed with the ICC and concluded that there was no continuity in the statements made by her and the witnesses. One of the witnesses mentioned that the Petitioner said that the accused made two comments but the Petitioner neither disclosed the comment nor gave any reason or justification for not disclosing it. The Court held that the allegation was false and filed with some ulterior motive.
Quick View:
It takes a lot of courage from people to come out and complain about the sexual harassment cases. However, in the recent times there have been cases where such accusations could not be proved in a court of law but the accused had faced social stigma. This judgment by the Delhi High Court states that there has to be continuity in the statements made by the victim and the witnesses. If the act occurs in public and the witnesses do no corroborate what the victim alleges then such allegation is deemed to be false and malicious.
Disclaimer: This post has been prepared for informational purposes only. The information/or observations contained in this post does not constitute legal advice and should not be acted upon in any specific situation without seeking proper legal advice from a practicing attorney.