Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The plaintiff has filed the present Arbitration suit under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 18.08.2017.

2) The germane facts leading to the case of plaintiff can be stated in nutshell to the effect that the defendant has instituted Arbitral proceedings before sole arbitrator for recovery of an amount of Rs.27,70,833/­ being performance linked incentive for a period of 13 months and 9 days. The plaintiff on appearance filed objections contending that the defendant is not entitled for performance linked incentive as claimed in the Arbitration petition. The performance of the defendant was not upto the expectation of plaintiff company. The grant of performance linked incentive is based on financial performance of the company and on achievement of individual KRAs as per the terms of appointment of defendant. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for performance linked incentive as prayed in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

10) The defendant/claimant has joined the plaintiff company on 1.8.2013 as per Ex.P.1 as Group COO for Nova Speciality Surgery (NSS) and Nova IVI Fertility (NIF). The plaintiff/company has appointed the defendant/claimant on account of the expertise knowledge in the field and work experience. The defendant/claimant was forced to resign from the service and tendered his resignation letter. However, defendant/claimant continued in the service for three months being the notice period. The plaintiff company did not pay all the amount payable to defendant/claimant. Therefore the defendant/claimant issued the notice dated 26.9.2015 as per Ex.p.9 and the plaintiff company has given reply as per Ex.P.10. The defendant/claimant has claimed in the notice calling upon the plaintiff/company to pay an amount of Rs.27,70,833/­ as performance linked incentive, Rs.22,500/­ being the car lease amount, interest on both the said amount and an amount of Rs.25,00,000/­ by way of compensation. However, the defendant/claimant has restricted his claim for Rs.27,70,833/­ being the amount due on performance linked incentive. Now the dispute between the parties is restricted only to the claim of performance linked incentive which has been refused by the plaintiff company.

15) The defendant/claimant by notice dated 26.9.2015 as per Ex.p.9 has claimed various amount due to him. The said notice was replied by the plaintiff company as per Ex.P.10. The defendant/claimant has restricted his claim of Rs.27,70,833/­ for performance linked incentive. The learned sole arbitrator by award dated 18.8.2017 has held that the defendant/claimant is entitled for performance linked incentive. The plaintiff company has contended that the defendant/claimant is not entitled for the performance linked incentive on the premises that surgical business had not performed as expected. The defendant/claimant has accepted the offer of plaintiff company dated 15.6.2013 as per Ex.p.16 and he was appointed as Group COO as per Ex.P.1. The defendant/claimant has resigned from the job by tendering resignation dated 10.6.2014 as per Ex.P.3 being three months notice, which would be effective from 9.9.2014. The plaintiff company has communicated as per Ex.p.7 to the defendant/claimant that surgical business had not performed as expected. The grant of performance linked incentive is neither depending on the termination of employment by the plaintiff company nor voluntary nature of resignation tendered by the defendant/claimant. The terms of employment as per the letter of appointment dated 1.8.2013 at Ex.P.1 has to be taken into consideration while deciding the entitlement of defendant/claimant about performance linked incentive.

20) The learned counsel for the plaintiff company has argued that the defendant/claimant has not completed one year of service in the plaintiff company from the date of his appointment. Therefore, the defendant/claimant cannot claim performance linked incentive. It is not in dispute that the defendant/claimant joined the plaintiff company on 1.8.2013 as per Ex.P.1 and resigned from the post on 10.6.2014 as per Ex.P.3 by giving three months notice by stating that he will be quitting the service of the plaintiff company on closure of 9.9.2014. The service rendered by the defendant/claimant for the said period has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff company that since defendant/claimant has not completed one year service in the plaintiff company is not entitled for performance linked incentive. It is also equally pertinent to note that plaintiff company has not issued any notice to the defendant/claimant complaining that the defendant has not reached the target and the performance of the defendant is not satisfactory. The only communication that defendant/claimant received is as per Ex.P.7. The said objection was raised only after the resignation of defendant/claimant from the plaintiff company. Therefore, the claim of plaintiff company that surgical business has not performed as expected and as such, the claim of plaintiff company that defendant/claimant is not entitled for performance linked incentive cannot be accepted in view of the above referred evidence on record. The learned arbitrator has appreciated all the material evidence on record and was justified in arriving to the conclusion that defendant/claimant is entitled for performance linked incentive as claimed in the claim petition. The plaintiff company has failed to demonstrate by evidence on record that the award passed by the sole arbitrator is against public policy of India or patently illegal. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff company has failed to make out any ground warranting interference of this court in the award passed by sole arbitrator dated 18.8.2017 in terms of Sec.34 of the Act. Consequently, Point No.1 for consideration is answered in the negative.