VIMARSH DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD Vs. SYLVIA KARPAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 30.01.2017, passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, whereby the learned Labour Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for taking up a particular issue as a preliminary issue and deciding the same.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a development consulting organization. It provides services for management, and implementation of projects related to health, rural development, livelihood and poverty alleviation, elementary education, and nutrition etc. In order to carry out its work, the petitioner entered into a professional service contract with the respondent No.1, Ms. Sylvia Karpagam. According to the contract of service, she was required to train trainers, within twenty-five days, in batches, and manage the clinical, anthropometric and biochemical components of the fields survey including health investigators. She was paid professional fees of Rs.3,500/- per day. In order to train the batches, the respondent No.1 underwent training for twenty-eight days at Puri. However, after a period of one year, on 06.01.2015, the respondent No.1 abruptly resigned from her assignment. On 16.06.2015, the respondent No.1 issued a notice, wherein she claimed that she is entitled to an amount of Rs.98,102/- for having performed her part of contract from 18.08.2014 to 07.02015. In turn, the petitioner refuted her claims by its reply dated 29.07.2015. The petitioner, in fact, claimed an amount of Rs.50,31,000/- from the respondent No.1 being the cost of loss, defamation suffered, and amount spent on her training. Despite the fact that the contract of service contained an arbitration clause, the respondent No.1 did not invoke the arbitration clause. Instead, on 11.09.2015, she filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act", for short), and claimed an amount of Rs.98,102/-. On 11.09.2015, the petitioner immediately filed a detailed objection before the learned Labour Court. On 19.11.2016, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.2 and prayed the learned Labour Court to dismiss the claim of respondent No.1 for want of jurisdiction. The respondent No.1 filed her detailed objection to the said application. However, by order dated 30.01.2017, the learned Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. P.N. Rajeswara, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-