Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Petitioner Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) objects to the award dated 08.03.2022 and final award dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in this petition under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act.

PFRDA Vs. Munish Malik

2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of objections and as noted by the Arbitral Tribunal are as under :-

3. Petitioner published an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for the position of C.E.O. for National Pension System Trust (arrayed as respondent no. 2 before the Arbitral Tribunal) for a period of five years extendable further subject to the efficiency and competence of the candidate. Respondent no. 1 Munish Malik amongst others applied for this position. After thorough screening and extensive interview, respondent no. 1 was selected for the post of C.E.O. of National Pension System Trust on 29.05.2018. Subsequent to the offer letter dated 29.05.2018, an agreement was entered into between respondent no. 1 and petitioner on 04.09.2018 for engaging the respondent as C.E.O. of National Pension System Trust. The employment of respondent was subject to the terms and conditions of the contract dated 04.09.2018. Respondent no. 1 contended before the Arbitral Tribunal that he worked in that capacity to the complete satisfaction of petitioner as well as National Pension System Trust and to the best of his ability.

4. Petitioner and National Pension System Trust in their separate statements of defence alleged that respondent no. 1 was a contractual employee of National Pension System Trust and his tenure was for a period of five years from the date of his appointment unless terminated earlier besides the performance of assigned tasks being satisfactory which was the essence of the said contract, failing which the said contract was liable to be terminated by the petitioner. It is further stated in the statement of defence that the performance of the respondent no. 1 was being continuously PFRDA Vs. Munish Malik monitored by the board of National Pension System Trust to whom respondent no. 1 was directly reporting during his tenure. It was further alleged that performance of the respondent no. 1 was not upto the mark since his joining as the respondent no. 1 was irresponsible while discharging his duties for National Pension System Trust and that several operational issues had crippled the functioning of National Pension System Trust which were highlighted to respondent no. 1 but to no avail. Respondent no.1 did not make the office operational during lockdown period and he did not care to attend the office even though a curfew pass was arranged for him. It was further stated that in statement of defence that on 06.05.2020 a meeting of the Trustees of National Pension System Trust and the officials of petitioner was held over video conferencing presided by the chairman of petitioner and it was decided that performance appraisal of respondent no. 1 was required to be conducted by the chairman of National Pension System Trust for submitting it to the petitioner and it was resolved that the response of respondent no. 1 during Covid-19 pandemic time was far from encouraging and not appreciated by the petitioner. It is further stated that the chairman of National Pension System Trust shared the Annual Performance Appraisal and Report (APAR) for the financial year 2018-2019 and those of 2019-2020 with respondent no. 1 for filing up the self assessment for onward submission to Mr. Ashwin Parikh, Ex-chairman of National Pension System Trust as it was categorically clarified that Mr. Ashwin Parikh shall be the apprising authority for respondent no. 1, he being the Chairman for the year 2018-2019 and for the year 2019-2020. Mr. Ashwin Parikh provided his inputs on 16.05.2020 with respect to performance appraisal of respondent no. 1. On PFRDA Vs. Munish Malik 21.05.2020 respondent no. 1 on his own submitted APAR to the Chairman through Email. On 21.08.2020 a special meeting amongst the trustees of the National Pension System Trust was held for assessing the performance of respondent no. 1 and after due deliberations, the trustees agreed and resolved that continuation of respondent no. 1 as the CEO of National Pension System Trust was not in the best interest of Pension Policy Holders and on 23.08.2020 meeting of the Board of Trustees was held and minutes were forwarded to the chairman of petitioner and on 27.08.2020 in the board meeting of the petitioner it was resolved that services of respondent no. 1 being terminated with immediate effect after giving three months salary and subsequently on 11.09.2020 a letter terminating respondent no. 1's employment contract was issued by the petitioner. Case of petitioner is that termination of service of respondent no. 1 was in consonance with the terms and conditions of employment.