Sanjeev Narula JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J.
1. The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "Arbitration Act"] for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes pertaining to the Letter of Appointment dated 01st July, 2020 issued to him, by the Respondent [hereinafter, "LoA"]. The existence of LoA, which contains the arbitration agreement, is not in dispute; however, the Respondent objects to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts presented by the Petitioner are as follows:
2.1. Through the LoA, Petitioner was appointed as a Team Leader by Respondent for their Project titled "Consultancy Services of Authority's Engineer for supervision of Rehabilitation and up-gradation of Nh-730 from Km. 484.00 to Km. 505.120 (Ramnagar to Siswa Babu to two lane with paved shoulders (Rural Area) & two lane paved shoulder with service road (Urban Area) under EPC Mode in the state of Uttar Pradesh)", for a fixed remuneration of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month.
2.2. The Petitioner's tenure concluded on 28th February, 2021, but he was not paid salary for the months of December 2020, January 2021, and February 2021, despite completing all relieving formalities and submitting the site attendance sheets for the said months. However, as the Project was complete and Petitioner had not received any communication from Respondent requesting him to continue at the Project site, he left the site after due intimation to the concerned Superintendent of Work. Subsequently, on 15th March, 2021 and 07th April, 2021, the Respondent issued baseless e-mail communication and legal notice to Petitioner, asserting that it was the Petitioner's duty to pursue the Respondent for payment of his dues. Petitioner, in turn, addressed a legal notice dated 17th April, 2021 to Respondent, demanding immediate release of his salary. This prompted the exchange of a series of correspondences between the parties' respective lawyers, culminating in the filing of a civil suit by Petitioner before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for recovery of Rs. 6,00,000/- along with accumulated interest, against the Respondent.1
2.3. In the afore-noted suit, Respondent filed an application under Section 8 of Arbitration Act seeking reference of disputes to arbitration. The said application was allowed on 04th June, 2022, the plaint was rejected, and parties were relegated to arbitration proceedings in terms of Clause 13 of the LoA, which reads as under:
"13. Any disputes arising between the Management and yourself during the tenure of assignment shall be mutually settled, failing which the dispute will be referred to a recognized Arbitrator of company's choice whose decision shall be binding on both the parties, the same are subject to Patna jurisdiction;"
2.4. In the above background, the Petitioner has sought appointment of an Arbitrator through this Court.
THE CONTROVERSY
3. The Respondent's intention to resort to arbitration mechanism is evident from their application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act before the District Court. However, their objection concerns this Court's competence to appoint the Arbitrator, given that Clause 13 of the LoA stipulates "subject to Patna jurisdiction". Reliance was placed on Swastik Gases Private Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited