THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Arbitration Application No.130 of 2010 Date:23rd August, 2011 Between: Newstoday (P) Ltd., T.V. Division, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Ramoji Film City, Hyderabad, rep. by its authorized signatory Sri V.Nagaiah Choudary. …Applicant A n d 1.Mr.G.Rajeshwar & Anr. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Arbitration Application No.130 of 2010 ORDER: This Arbitration Application has been taken out by Newstoday (P) Ltd., under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, “the Act”), seeking appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the disputes arising out of agreement, dated 02.07.2008. 2. The applicant is engaged, inter alia, in the activity of collection and dissemination of news all over the world through television network etc. The 1st respondent applied to the applicant Organization to undergo Diploma Course in Journalism in Eenadu Journalism School, Ramoji Film City, Hyderabad. The applicant agreed to sponsor the 1st respondent to impart training to him in the said school, for which, the 1st respondent agreed to work as a Sub Editor/Reporter with the applicant Company for a continuous period of four years including the period of diploma course and advanced training on such terms and conditions. Having agreed for the same, the 1st respondent executed a Training-cum-Service Agreement, dated 02.07.2008, with the applicant’s Company along with two sureties. The respondents 2 and 3 are the sureties of the 1st respondent. As per the said agreement, if 1st respondent fails to perform his obligations during the training period, he shall compensate the applicant Company, to a sum of R.75,000/- vide clause 10(b) of the Training-cum-Service Agreement, dated 02.07.2008. The 1st respondent joined in the training at Ramoji Film City, Hyderabad, on 10.07.2009. As per the agreement, after completion of Diploma course in Eenadu Journalism School, the 1st respondent was appointed as Trainee Sub Editor/Reporter vide letter of Appointment, dated 10.07.2009, for a training period of one year to undergo training in their Srikakulam Office and accordingly, the 1st respondent joined on 10.07.2009. The 1st respondent while undergoing training, abstained from training without sanctioned leave or intimation from 03.10.2009. The applicant issued a letter, dated 22.10.2009, advising the 1st respondent to report to training. Despite receipt of the said letter, the 1st respondent failed to report to training. Thereupon, the applicant issued a notice, dated 14.11.2009, directing the 1st respondent, to show-cause as to why he shall not be discharged from training considering as he left the training voluntarily on his own accord. A copy of the notice has also been marked to the respondents 2 and 3 for information. On receipt of the said notice, the 1st respondent sent a reply, vide letter dated 30.11.2009, expressing his inability to continue in training due to his ill-health and requested to allot any training centre in Hyderabad. The applicant, vide letter dated 07.12.2009, while informing the 1st respondent that it is not possible to transfer him to Hyderabad to undergo further training and advised him to submit Medical Certificate issued by Government Hospital in support of his ill-health. In response, the 1st respondent sent a letter, dated 17.12.2009, along with a medical certificate issued by Government Doctor, stating that he will resume his duties w.e.f. 17.12.2009. However, the 1st respondent failed to report to duty on 17.12.2009. The applicant sent another letter, dated 21.12.2009, advising the 1st respondent to report to training at Srikakulam immediately. In spite of receipt of the said letter, the 1st respondent neither reported to training nor sent any reply. Thereby the 1st respondent committed breach of Clause 10(b) of the training-cum-service agreement, dated 02.07.2008, rendering himself along with respondents 2 and 3, liable to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/-. As per Clause 18 of the agreement, dated 02.07.2008, disputes are required to be referred to the sole arbitrator. The applicant invoked the arbitration clause and issued a notice, dated 10.03.2010 nominating Sri K.Prakash, Advocate, 12-1-1150, Old Mallepally, Hyderabad, as arbitrator and called upon the respondents 1 to 3 to give their consent and agree for the said appointment. In response, the 1st respondent gave a reply, dated 13.04.2010, requesting the applicant not to take any action against them. Hence, this application by the applicant seeking the relief stated supra. 3. Notice to the respondents came to be issued on 06.09.2010. Despite service of notice, respondents did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the material brought on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that as per the terms of Training-cum-Service Agreement, dated 02.07.2008, the 1st respondent agreed to work as a Sub-Editor/Reporter in the applicant Company for a continuance period of four years including the period of Diploma course and advanced training. A further submission has been made that the 1st respondent left the training voluntarily and thereby committed breach of the terms of the agreement. The disputes between the applicant and the respondents are required to be resolved by a sole arbitrator. Learned counsel refers Clause 18 of the agreement, dated 02.07.2008, which reads as hereunder: “In the event of any dispute (including any Industrial Dispute) or difference which may arise between parties or their representatives with regard to the construction, meaning and effect of this deed or any part thereof or their respective right and liabilities there under, the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of an arbitrator to be nominated and whose award shall be final and binding on the parties. The provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall govern the Arbitration Proceedings.” 6. It is evident from the record that the applicant and the respondents entered into an agreement, dated 02.07.2008. The 1st respondent discontinued the training and thereby disputes arose between the parties. The disputes are required to be resolved by a sole arbitrator as per Clause 18 of the agreement. In that view of the matter, I find that the applicant made out valid ground for appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the disputes arising out of agreement, dated 02.07.2008. 7. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed. Sri M.Bhaskar, Retd. District Judge, is appointed as an arbitrator for resolution of the disputes arising out of the agreement, dated 02.07.2008. He shall fix his own fee. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:23rd August, 2011. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Arbitration Application No.130 of 2010 Date: 23rd August, 2011