2015 (7) TMI 1011 - SC - Indian Laws

Gender discrimination and harassment of female employee - Arbitration petition filed for compensation - reference to solutions programme - demand for arbitration made by the petitioner was refused by the respondent on the ground that the solutions programme was not applicable to the petitioner and the same was meant only for employees of the first respondent in the United States of America - Held that - there is no binding arbitration agreement between the petitioner and her employer so as to enable this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. The attempt of the petitioner to bring in the provision for arbitration contained in the solutions programme as a part of the terms of her employment with the respondent No.2 remains wholly unsubstantiated. Not only the employment contract signed by the petitioner does not contain any specific clause of arbitration or makes the provision for arbitration contained in the solutions programme applicable to her employment, the clause providing for exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Bombay specifically negate the claim of the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract of employment of the petitioner. Under Section 7 of the 1996 Act the parties to an arbitration agreement must agree to submit their disputes to arbitration. What is contemplated under the solutions programme is a mere possibility of the employee seeking arbitration as opposed to an obligation to refer all disputes to arbitration. - petitioner is not entitled to invoke this Court s jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act. - Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of the arbitration mechanism under the "solutions programme" to the petitioner's case.
2. Existence of a binding arbitration agreement between the petitioner and her employer.
3. Jurisdiction of the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. Whether the petitioner's claim is time-barred and if there are oblique/collateral motives involved.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of the arbitration mechanism under the "solutions programme" to the petitioner's case
The petitioner, a former employee of Coca-Cola India, invoked the arbitration mechanism under the "solutions programme" for compensation against harassment and gender discrimination experienced during employment and post-resignation. The respondent denied the applicability of the program to the petitioner, stating it was only for U.S.-based employees of the first respondent. The petitioner argued that the program extended worldwide, supported by communication from Coca-Cola Company. The Court analyzed the provisions of the program and found the petitioner's claim unsubstantiated, emphasizing the lack of specific arbitration clauses in her employment contract and the exclusive jurisdiction clause for Bombay courts, negating the existence of an arbitration agreement.

Issue 2: Existence of a binding arbitration agreement between the petitioner and her employer
The respondent contended that the employment agreement did not include an arbitration clause and that the "solutions programme" was not applicable to non-U.S. employees of the first respondent. The respondent highlighted an amendment specifying the jurisdiction of disputes to be in Bombay. The Court determined that no binding arbitration agreement existed between the petitioner and her employer, as the arbitration provisions in the "solutions programme" were not incorporated into the employment contract, and the jurisdiction clause further supported this finding.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
After thorough analysis, the Court concluded that there was no basis for invoking its jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act due to the absence of a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. The Court referenced previous judgments to support its decision, emphasizing the need for parties to agree to arbitration and be bound by the arbitrator's decision, which was not evident in the "solutions programme."

Issue 4: Time-barred claim and oblique/collateral motives
Although raised by the parties, the Court did not delve into whether the petitioner's claim was time-barred or if there were oblique/collateral motives behind the application, as the primary issue of the lack of a binding arbitration agreement was determinative of the case.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act, citing the absence of a binding arbitration agreement. No costs were awarded due to the circumstances of the case.