Court dismisses Anandpur Sahib museum ex-director's plea against arbitral award

The Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, has dismissed a petition filed by B George Jacob, a former director of Khalsa Heritage Centre, Anandpur Sahib, challenging arbitral award passed by the sole arbitrator in 2018 declining his claim.

In the petition, he had stated that he was a resident of San Francisco, USA, and was offered the position of the director of the centre by Anandpur Sahib Foundation, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh. He left his job in the US and accepted the offer.

He was hired for five years on January 1, 2010, at a salary of Rs 40 lakh with annual increase of 3% to 7%. The total value of the contract was approximately Rs 2.2 crores.

However, he was informed on August 2, 2010, that his services were no longer required and his contract was terminated without assigning any reason, causing him a financial loss and hitting his professional reputation, besides bringing unwanted harassment to him.

On August 13, 2010, he moved the High Court, which directed the respondent to restore all perks and other privileges as per the contract.

On May 14, 2015, the writ petition was disposed of and a liberty was given to the claimant to seek appointment of arbitrator as per clause 17 of the Contract Agreement. Thereafter, the High Court appointed the arbitrator.

The petitioner claimed Rs 1.94 crores as salary, which was not paid to him, Rs 84,000 as air fare, Rs 1,80,000 on account of relocation and Rs 10 lakh for loss of professional reputation, pain and suffering.

While passing the award on July 21, 2018, the arbitrator declined all claims, barring the air fare.

The foundation stated that Jacob was appointed purely on contract basis to manage the museum. Since there has been a delay in setting up the museum, the services of the objector at an annually salary of Rs 40 lakh were not viable and hence terminated in consonance with the terms of the contract.

After hearing the arguments, the court stated that the findings of the arbitrator were logical, well-reasoned and did not require its interference. The objection petition was dismissed with costs.