Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Poonam Chopra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 January, 2018
WP 16188/ 2017
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 16188/2017
( Ku. Poonam Chopra V. State of M.P. and others)
Jabalpur
17.01.2018
Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Shivendra Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.09.2017 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. the Director, Sports and Youth Welfare, T.T. Nagar Stadium, Bhopal whereby contractual services of the petitioner have been terminated with immediate effect on 29.09.2017.
The case of the petitioner is that she is a national player of Judo and has also been decorated with various awards including Arjun Award. Petitioner's grievance is that she is presently posted as Coach of Judo and was appointed on the aforesaid post on contract basis vide order dated 03.06.2017 for a period of four years. Petitioner's contention is that certain dispute arose between her and other students who were rather indiscipline and were not taking any interest in sports. Hence a complaint to this effect was also made by the petitioner to the Director on 26.09.2017. it is further submitted that the trainee girl against whom complaint was made by the petitioner also submitted a written complaint against the petitioner on 28.09.2017 but without properly ascertaining the facts and the complaint made by the petitioner, the allegations made by that trainee girl were held to be correct and without issuing any notice, the petitioner was served with order of termination WP 16188/ 2017 2 dated 29.09.2017 (Annexure P/4) on the ground of complaints against her in respect of her conduct and discipline.
Petitioner's contention is that her services are governed by the Contract which provides that revocation of contract can be done by either of the parties by giving a months' time or remuneration of one month in lieu thereof, which has not been followed and apart from that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner which violates her fundamental rights as also the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination order is stigmatic in nature and should not have been passed without affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted representation to this effect but no orders have been passed on the same till date.
Reply to the aforesaid petition has also been filed by the respondents refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent/State that admittedly, the petitioner's services are governed by the appointment order /Contract dated 03.06.2017 (Annexure P/2), which provides an in-house settlement of disputes and as per the aforesaid clause, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents is to be referred to an arbitrator. It is further submitted that it is on account of complaints made by the students raising serious allegations against the petitioner that the order of termination has been passed and in this behalf preliminary enquiry was also conducted in which it was found that the petitioner was involved in threatening the player- students. Respondents have also filed a compact disc to substantiate their case which is in respect of the petitioner's conduct with the student. Thus, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed as not maintainable due to availability of arbitration clause. Alternatively, without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, it is also submitted that the respondent may be WP 16188/ 2017 3 allowed to withdraw the order of termination dated 29.09.2017 with the liberty to pass fresh orders after affording the due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Heard.
Admittedly the employment of the petitioner is contractual in nature and Clause 5 of the Contract dated 03.06.2017 relates to dispute settlement, the relevant excerpt of the same reads as under:-
"5. Dispute Settlement:
* XXX * In case of any disputes arising out of this contract between the parties, the dispute shall be referred to an arbitrator as per the arbitration & reconciliation act as decided by party 2, the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties."
In the entire petition, the petitioner has not averred that why this remedy of arbitration is not an efficacious remedy and when this objection has been raised by the respondent in its reply, only then in her rejoinder the petitioner has stated that the clause 5 is illegal and is contrary to law as it restrains the petitioner from raising any grievance against the respondent. It is further stated that the under which provisions of law the arbitrator would be appointed is also not clear.
In the considered opinion of this court, the contention of the petitioner that clause 5 of the contract is illegal and cannot be acted upon is fallacious and has been made only to avoid the consequences. After entering into the contract with her eyes wide open and after reaping the benefits of the same, it does not lie with the petitioner to contend that certain part of the contract is illegal and cannot be acted upon. This Court is also of the firm view that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 takes care of all the eventualities.
WP 16188/ 2017 4So far as the allegation regarding haphazard manner in which the impugned order has been passed, it appears to have some substance as the entire proceedings have been concluded in a days time only as the alleged incident took place on 27.09.2017 at around 4 pm and the order of termination has been passed on 29.09.2017 without giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In such circumstances, since the respondent have fairly conceded that they may be allowed to withdraw the impugned order so as to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to submit her case, the prayer appears reasonable and can be allowed.
As a result, the impugned order dated 29.09.2017 is hereby quashed with the liberty reserved to the respondent to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In case of any adverse order, the petitioner is also free to take recourse of the arbitration clause as provided under clause 5 of the contract to ventilate her grievances.
The petition stands allowed to the extent as above with no orders as to costs.
C.C. As per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Vikram Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2018.02.06 15:19:00 +05'30'