CAN THE ARBITRAL CLAUSE BE INVOKED IN THE PRESENT ISSUE?

The arbitral clause in the present case cannot be invoked by the claimant as the Disputes in
relation to employment clause of the company policy states that “in case of any dispute, it must
be first communicated to the HR department of the company and the HR department must take
the decision in 21 days after looking into the issues. And only after the award is given by the HR,
in case it is unsatisfactory the Arbitration Clause must be invoked.

In the present case, though the issue was reported to the HR but arbitration clause was invoked
within 21 days of the addressing of issue to HR department and Mr. Steve did not wait for the
department to decide the issue and invoked arbitration clause before the prescribed time limit and
hence, the same act is invalid and arbitration clause cannot be invoked.

IS THERE THE BREACH OF CONTRACT IN PRESENT CASE?

The counsel humbly submits that the contract of employment has been breached by Mr. Steve.
The Compliance of Company policy clause clearly states that deviance from any of the clause
of the company policy would mean a breach of contract which might lead to termination of
employment contract. [The Termination clause of ‘Terms and Conditions of Employment’
clearly mentions that in case of breach of contract of employment, the employment of Mr. Steve
can be terminated without notice.]

On the dispute regarding the time period of the extended long term onsite of Mr. Steve, he
invoked the arbitration clause without abiding to the terms and contracts of the employment
which clearly mentions that arbitration can be invoked only when the issue is solved by HR
department and the person is unsatisfied by the result of department.

Clause 3 of Schedule B of Company Policy clearly states “the onsite policy of an employee does
not exceed 18 months at a stretch.” And the fact the time period of the extended onsite of Mr.
Steve was not intimated to him, he presumed about the extended time. Even though the extended
time duration was not informed, it is the practice of the company that the limit for long term
onsite cannot exceed 18 months. Any prudent man would not shift his family and change the
schooling of his children for mere time period of a year and half until and unless he has different
intentions.

In the present case where Mr. Steve claims to have been blackmailed by the manager of the
Indian Company about being relived, it is humbly put forth the bench that the facts are being
twisted and coated in a manner to put my client in an unwanted difficult situation. It is the duty
of my client as a manager of the company to remind the employees about their acts being in
contrary to the employment contract and company policy and same might result in them being
relived from the employment. It is clear from the situation that Mr. Steve wanted to stay abroad
with his family and that’s the reason he’s alleging all such acts against my client.

PRAYER

Considering the terms and conditions of the contract and keeping in mind the company policy,
the council does not submit to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Tribunal as the arbitration clause
cannot be invoked in present case. The council humbly prays the tribunal to not entertain the
present case for the same reasons.

The council also prays that for all the allegations and false acquisitions made against my client
and harassment caused, there should be no compensation made to Mr. Steve for the cost incurred
during onsite.