https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460609 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. en-us Thu, 08 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Feb 2025 16:46:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460609 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460609