PRABIR KUMAR BAIDYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point of maintainability, as argued by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, is whether the presence of an arbitration clause would act as an impediment to the petitioner approaching a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The writ petitioner has challenged an order of termination dtd. 19/2/2021 by the Executive Director and State Head of the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). The petitioner has challenged the termination on grounds including that of arbitrariness and violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the arbitration clause in the Distributorship Agreements dtd. 29/1/1990 would not act as a bar since the petitioner 's case would fall under the exceptions in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors.; (1998) 8 SCC 1.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the IOC submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has failed to avail of the alternative remedy provided in the Distributorship Agreement, namely, seeking a reference of the disputes to arbitration. Counsel refers to decisions in support of his contention that a Writ Court should not entertain petitions where the petitioner has failed to exhaust the available alternative remedy. Although counsel had primarily urged the question of maintainability of the writ petition, the factual aspect has also been shown to the Court to put emphasis on the impugned order of termination. The issue of maintainability is being addressed first.