Non-arbitrability under mandatory labour statutes bars arbitration where wages and termination disputes already lie before statutory fora.

Disputes over unpaid wages and termination, already pursued before the statutory fora under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were treated as non-arbitrable because a mandatory statutory scheme excluded private adjudication; the Section 11(6) request for arbitration could not be sustained. The alleged breach of a non-disclosure clause also could not support appointment of an arbitrator, as it was not raised in the show-cause notice, inquiry report, charge memo, or termination order and did not disclose a real dispute on the disciplinary record. The arbitration petition was dismissed and the arbitrator's appointment set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disputes concerning unpaid wages and the legality of termination, already pursued before the statutory fora under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were arbitrable so as to sustain an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) Whether the alleged breach of the non-disclosure clause could justify the request for appointment of an arbitrator.

Issue (i): Whether disputes concerning unpaid wages and the legality of termination, already pursued before the statutory fora under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were arbitrable so as to sustain an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The dispute regarding non-payment of wages was already the subject of proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the challenge to termination was pending before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The statutory scheme excludes ordinary civil adjudication in respect of such matters, and the Court applied the principle that disputes rendered non-arbitrable by mandatory statute cannot be sent to arbitration. The invocation of arbitration in these circumstances was treated as an abuse of the remedial process.

Conclusion: The disputes concerning unpaid wages and termination were held to be non-arbitrable, and the Section 11(6) petition could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged breach of the non-disclosure clause could justify the request for appointment of an arbitrator.

Analysis: The alleged violation of the non-disclosure obligation was not part of the show-cause notice, inquiry report, charge memo, or termination order. The materials showed no real dispute on that footing, and the plea was treated as a later attempt to introduce a new controversy that did not arise from the disciplinary record.

Conclusion: The alleged non-disclosure dispute was held to be non-existent and incapable of supporting the request for arbitration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order appointing the arbitrator was set aside, and the Section 11(6) petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute that is expressly or by necessary implication excluded from private adjudication by a mandatory statutory regime, or that is already pending before the competent statutory forum, cannot be compelled into arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

---