Section 34 review permits reduction of excessive arbitral compensation while leaving unproved employment claims undisturbed.

A court exercising Section 34 jurisdiction may interfere with an arbitral award that is contrary to public policy and may adjust the quantum of compensation where the award is legally unsustainable. Applying that principle, compensation for the employer's failure to constitute a workplace harassment complaint mechanism was upheld in principle but reduced as excessive. The court also declined to disturb the rejection of claims for salary revision, transfer to the United States, termination procedure, training opportunities, stock options, and loss of employment opportunity, finding no basis to interfere with the concurrent factual findings or proof of entitlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could vary the quantum of compensation awarded under the 12th claim for non-constitution of a Vishaka committee; (ii) Whether the rejection of the remaining claims for non-revision of salary, failure to transfer to the United States, termination procedure, training opportunities, stock options, and loss of employment opportunity called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could vary the quantum of compensation awarded under the 12th claim for non-constitution of a Vishaka committee.

Analysis: The award under the 12th claim arose from the employer's failure to constitute the complaint mechanism mandated for allegations of workplace sexual harassment. The non-constitution of such a committee was treated as a legally material breach, and the Court held that compensation was payable for that violation. The Court further held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Section 34 is not confined to a binary setting aside of the award, and that a court may modify the quantum where the award is found to be contrary to public policy or otherwise legally unsustainable. However, the amount granted by the single Judge was held to be excessive and not proportionate to the breach.

Conclusion: The compensation for the 12th claim was upheld in principle but reduced from Rs. 1,68,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the remaining claims for non-revision of salary, failure to transfer to the United States, termination procedure, training opportunities, stock options, and loss of employment opportunity called for interference.

Analysis: The Court found no basis to disturb the concurrent findings on the remaining claims. The claims for transfer to the United States and related salary revision were negatived on the evidence showing that the employee herself had sought postponement of relocation. The claim relating to termination procedure failed because notice pay in lieu of the stipulated period had been paid. The claims for training opportunities and employee stock options were rejected because the asserted entitlements were not established under the employment arrangement. The claim for loss of employment opportunity also failed for want of material showing actual deprivation attributable to the employer after termination.

Conclusion: The rejection of claims 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The award was affirmed in substance, but the compensation awarded for non-constitution of the workplace harassment committee was substantially reduced, leaving the rest of the arbitral and single-Judge findings undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A court acting under Section 34 may interfere with an arbitral award that is contrary to public policy and may adjust the quantum of compensation where the award is legally unsustainable, while concurrent findings on unproved contractual claims will not be disturbed absent a clear ground for interference.

---