Bombay High Court
The Chief Administrative ... vs Shri. Satish Gajanan Pradhan on 10 August, 2022
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRIYA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RAJESH WRIT PETITION NO. 848 OF 2020
SOPARKAR
Digitally signed by
PRIYA RAJESH The Chief Administrative Officer,
SOPARKAR
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
Date: 2022.08.12
18:08:40 +0530 CIDCO Bhavan, South Desk, Belapur,
Navi Mumbai - 400614. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Shri Satish Gajanan Pradhan,
Age - 67 Years, Occu. - Retired,
R/at Flat No. 301, Sangam Heritage,
Bhoir Coloney, Near Gawade Coloney,
Chinchwad, Pune - 411033. ... Respondent
-------
Mr.Ajit R. Pitale for Petitioner.
Mr.Padmanabh Pise i/b.P.Padmanabh & Associates for Respondent.
-------
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
RESERVED ON : 19th JULY 2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th AUGUST 2022
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a Petition filed by the Chief Administrative Officer - Maharashtra
Jeevan Pradhikaran challenging the order dated 29 th June, 2019 passed by the
Permanent Lok Adalat, Pune ("PLA") rejecting the challenge by the Petitioner to
the jurisdiction of the PLA.
2. The Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran is a body constituted under the
Maharashtra Jeevan Authority Act, 1976 and Petitioner is a State functionary
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
working under the direction, control and supervision of the State of
Maharashtra.
3. The Respondent was appointed as a Typist on 26 th July, 1973 in the
Public Health Works Division, Ratnagiri. He gave his option to be continued as
Typist permanently on 1st January, 1986. The Respondent was sought to be
promoted as a Senior Clerk in the year 1999 but he refused to accept the said
promotion. It is the case of the Petitioner that inadvertently, Applicant was given
the pay-scale of Senior Clerk for which he was not legally entitled and despite
being aware, the Respondent did not bring this to the notice of Petitioner's
Office. The Respondent retired from service on 30 th September, 2008 from the
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Pune Division.
4. On the basis that a wrong Office Order about the pay-scale can be
rectified in time and payments mistakenly made can be recovered at any time, at
the time of retirement of Respondent from service, purported excess payment of
Rs.7,98,675/- was deducted by Petitioner from Respondent's pension and
gratuity. The Respondent raised objection against the said decision by making a
representation vide letter dated 3 rd August, 2013. The Respondent on the basis
that his basic pay was Rs.6,300/- of Typist scale at the time of his retirement on
30th September, 2008 and despite that the Applicant was getting pension as per
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
Rs.4,830/- basic pay entered into further protracted correspondence with
Petitioner seeking entitlement of the difference in pay scale including 6 th Pay
Commission for an amount of Rs.7,98,675/-.
5. Respondent's case is that despite extensive correspondence exchanged
from 2011 to 2018 between Respondent and Petitioner to settle the matter
amicably, the same did not lead to any tangible results and therefore the
Respondent was constrained to file Dispute Application No.454 of 2018 before
the PLA under Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the
"said Act") in respect of recovery of Rs.7,98,675/- with interest at the rate 9%
per annum.
6. After the Application was filed by Respondent before the PLA, Petitioner
herein being the Opponent therein had filed its Written Statement (Exhibit-9)
on 12th November, 2018 and thereafter, the matter was posted for conciliation
on various dates. The conciliation failed. Thereafter by a joint purshis (Exhibit-
11) filed on 6th February, 2019, it was requested that the matter be decided by
the PLA by way of adjudication. A direction was given by the PLA for filing of the
original service book of the Respondent. The Respondent filed his evidence
(Exhibit-12) on 11th February, 2019.
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
7. While Respondent's Application before the PLA was pending, Petitioner
filed an Application on 12th March, 2019 challenging the jurisdiction of the PLA
which came to be rejected on 29th June, 2019 by the PLA. Therefore this Petition.
8. Petitioner's case is that earlier, one complaint was lodged by Respondent
with the Lokayukta under the provisions of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-
Lokayuktas Act, 1971 which complaint was rejected on the ground that it was
not maintainable under Section 8(1)(A) of the said Act as the Lokayukta had no
jurisdiction with respect to matters relating to pension, gratuity, provident fund
etc. and that there is no case pending in any Court nor Petitioner has agreed to
refer the case to Lok Adalat nor has any Court referred the case to Lok Adalat. It
is submitted that therefore the Application by Respondent is not covered under
Sections 19(5) or 22C(1) of the said Act. It was also submitted that since the
Respondent was a permanent government servant, the provisions of the
Maharashtra Civil Services Act would be applicable that he ought to have
approached the forum under the said Act or the High Court but not the PLA.
Further, it was submitted that the Respondent being a Typist was a workman
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could have filed a Complaint before the
Industrial Court/ Labour Court and that PLA cannot entertain any Application in
respect of a subject matter which is in the exclusive domain of the Industrial
Court/Labour Court or the Hon'ble High Court. That although the Respondent
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
retired on 30th September, 2009, he has filed the Application before the PLA only
on 14th September, 2018 which is after a span of ten years after retirement and
therefore, the Application is also time barred.
9. It was also submitted that the Respondent was not entitled to legal
services as he is not covered under the category stated under Section 12 of the
said Act and as such, the PLA does not have any jurisdiction to entertain
Respondent's Application.
10. The Respondent-Pensioner filed his say to the said Application. It was
submitted that the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta did not entertain
the complaint as they had no jurisdiction with respect to matters relating to
pensions, gratuity, provident funds etc. Further, the submission that the
Pensioner has not filed any Appeal / Writ Petition against the Lokayukta order
and therefore, the PLA has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present
dispute, is baseless inasmuch as pension services are included under public
utility services and therefore, PLA has jurisdiction to entertain and try the said
dispute. It is stated that the pensioner has filed his Pre-litigation Application
under Section 22C(1) for settlement of his disputes and not under Section
20C(1) of the said Act. It is contended that the Petitioner is unnecessarily trying
to complicate the matter by making submissions which are irrelevant and not
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
applicable in the present matter. That reference to Section 19(5) of the said Act
is only to mislead the PLA. That Respondent was appointed as Typist on 24 th
July, 1973 and never worked as a Senior Clerk or even Junior Clerk and that he
had worked only as a Typist till his retirement. Respondent's case is that the
basic pay of the Applicant was Rs.6,300/- of Typist scale on retirement on 30 th
September, 2008, but despite that he is getting pension of Rs.4,830/- basic pay.
It was submitted that since despite extensive correspondence to settle the
matter amicably for many years instead of cooperation from petitioner there has
been resistance from the petitioner which has forced the Respondent to run from
pillar to post for redressal of his grievances and therefore, it would not be
correct to say that there has been a delay in raising the dispute after ten years.
Therefore, the application is not barred by limitation as the cause of action is a
continuous one.
11. It is submitted that grave injustice has been caused to the Respondent-
Pensioner as Petitioner has illegally recovered almost three lakhs from
Respondent's pension and gratuity amount, which recovery was going on for two
and half years. That the dispute falls within the ambit of Section 22-C (4) or
Section 22-C (7) of the said Act and that the PLA is within his jurisdiction to
conduct the conciliation proceedings and to pass an order directing Petitioner to
produce the service book and therefore, the contention in this regard with
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
respect to power of PLA is misplaced.
12. The PLA, after considering the contentions of Petitioner and the
Respondent-Pensioner and after examining the provisions of the said Act and
citing various decisions rejected Petitioner's challenge to PLA's jurisdiction and
held that the PLA has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the
Respondent in the Pre-litigation Application preferred by the Respondent under
Section 22C(1) of the Act.
13. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"a) This Honourable Court be pleased to call for the records and
proceedings of the Pre litigation Dispute Application No.
454/2018 from the Permanent Lok Adalat, Pune and after
examining the legality and propriety thereof, be pleased to
quash and set aside the Order dated 29.06.2019 passed by
Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Pune, below Exh. - 14 in Pre
litigation Dispute Application No. 454/2018.
14. Mr. Ajit Pitale, learned Counsel for Petitioner submits at the outset that
the PLA has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute arising in matter pertaining to
labour. He submits that the Respondent is a 'workman' under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and an 'employee' under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. He
submits that even the Administrative Tribunals Act would apply to the case of
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
Respondent. Moreover, the PLA ought to have considered that the employee has
to seek the payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act and not otherwise.
15. He further submits that the PLA is not a Court and is not empowered to
take evidence in the case of a dispute under the said Act. That the Respondent
has to first prove his entitlement to the scale of Senior Clerk before the
Appropriate Authority which is not the PLA, but the Industrial Court under the
MRTU & PULP Act. It was also submitted by learned Counsel that the PLA ought
to have considered the settled principle of law that Government Resolutions and
Notifications do not supersede or amend the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
16. Mr. Pitale, learned Counsel for Petitioner has raised objections citing
Sections 19 and 20 of the said Act as applicable to Permanent Lok Adalats.
Learned Counsel refers to Section 19(5) in respect of his contention and submits
that like a Lok Adalat, Permanent Lok Adalats also have jurisdiction in respect of
a dispute in any case pending before or any matter which is falling within the
jurisdiction of but is not brought before any Court for which, Lok Adalat is
organized. He would submit that in the present case, there is no case pending or
a case which has been brought before a Court having jurisdiction for which, PLA
is organized. He also draws the attention of the Court to Section 20 which refers
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
to cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats and submits that where in any case,
pending before a Court, the parties thereof agree or one of the parties makes an
application to the Court for referring the case to Lok Adalat for settlement and if
such Court is prima facie satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be
taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the case to the Lok
Adalat. Learned Counsel submits that since no such case is pending and no
reference has been made by Court to the Permanent Lok Adalat, the said
Application by the Respondent is not maintainable. He also refers to Section
20(2) in support of his contention where it is stated that on an application from
any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5)
of section 19, the Authority or Committee organizing the Lok Adalat may refer
the case to the Lok Adalat, for determination.
17. With respect to the decisions cited in the impugned order, it is submitted
that those were cases where entitlement was already decided whereas in the
present case, entitlement of the Respondent is in question.
18. Mr.Padmanabh Pise, learned Counsel for the Respondent refers to and
relies on the decision of the PLA. He would submit that the PLA has jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 22A and 22B of the said Act in respect of one or more public
utility service in view of Notification dated 10 th March, 2011 whereby, pension
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
service has been declared to be a public utility service for the purposes of
Chapter-VIA of the Act. He submits that the PLA, therefore, has jurisdiction to
entertain and dispose the Application made by Respondent. Learned Counsel
also refers to Section 22 of the said Act which provides for powers of Permanent
Lok Adalat and submits that for the purposes of holding any determination
under the Act, the PLA also has the same powers as vested in a Civil Court while
trying a suit which includes the power to summon and take evidence as well.
19. Learned counsel therefore submits that the Petition is devoid of any merit
and deserves to be dismissed. Learned Counsel also refers to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bar Council of India V/s. Union of India (AIR 2012
Supreme Court 3246) in support of his contentions. He submits that the said
decision has elaborately discussed the provisions of the said Act with particular
reference to Permanent Lok Adalats and its powers to adjudicate disputes
regarding public utility services on merits and observed that conferment of
power under Section 22-C(8) to adjudicate the disputes about public utility
services on merits is not an anathema to the rule of law and does not rob the
user of public utility of his power to get relief through a Civil Court or special
fora. He submits that therefore it is not necessary that there should be a case
pending in any Court or that there has to be a reference of a dispute to the PLA.
The PLA can itself entertain an Application in respect of a dispute pertaining to a
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
public utility service covered under the said Act. He submits that the Petition is
therefore devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
20. I have heard Mr.Ajit R. Pitale, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr.Padmanabh Pise, learned Counsel for the Respondent at length and with
their able assistance, I have perused the papers and proceedings in the matter.
21. Facts are not in dispute. Respondent worked as a Typist from the date of
his appointment till the date of his retirement. He was never appointed nor
worked as a Senior Clerk or a Junior Clerk. That an amount of Rs.7,98,675/-
was deducted by Petitioner from Respondent's pension and gratuity on the
ground that Petitioner had inadvertently given pay-scale of Senior Clerk to
Respondent which he was not legally entitled to. Aggrieved by the same and
purportedly on the basis and belief that though the basic pay of a Typist was
Rs.6,300/- at the time of his retirement on 30 th September, 2008, Respondent
was being given pension at the rate of Rs.4,830/- basic pay. The Petitioner
entered into correspondence with Respondent for the said amount with interest
at the rate of 9% per annum. The Respondent approached the Lokayukta by
lodging a complaint, which was rejected as not maintainable as the matter
pertained to pension and the gratuity. Thereafter, Petitioner filed Dispute
Application No.454 of 2018 before the PLA under Section 22-C(1) of the said Act
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
for Rs.7,98,675/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Before the PLA, the
matter was taken up for conciliation as per procedure but despite efforts, the
conciliation did not succeed. Thereafter, it was jointly requested by the
Petitioner and Respondent that the matter be decided by the PLA by way of
adjudication. Direction was given by the PLA for filing of original service book.
Evidence also came to be filed by the Respondent. While all this was pending,
Petitioner filed an Application challenging the jurisdiction of the PLA.
22. The issue is whether under the provisions of the said Act, Permanent Lok
Adalat has jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent's Application under the said
Act even though there is neither any case pending before any Court nor
reference agreed to be made by the Respondent nor any reference has been
made by a Court to the Permanent Lok Adalat.
23. Before proceeding further, a brief history leading upto the introduction of
the provisions with respect to Lok Adalats would be helpful.
24. Article 39A of the Constitution of India entitled "Equal justice and free
legal aid" was introduced with effect from 3 rd January, 1977 by the
Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. It provides that the State
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of
equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable
legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for
securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other
disabilities.
25. With the objective of providing free legal aid, in the year 1980, a
Committee had been appointed for implementing the legal aid schemes under
the Chairmanship of Justice P.N. Bhagwati to monitor and implement the legal
aid programs on a uniform basis in the country. The Committee evolved a model
scheme for legal aid program applicable throughout the country by which
several legal aid and advisory boards had been set up in the States and the
Union territories. In order to more effectively implement the legal aid program
in view of the constitutional mandate, a need was felt to constitute statutory
legal services authorities at the National, State and District levels so as to
supervise the effective implementation of the legal aid programs.
26. Also Lok Adalats that were constituted in the country at various places for
expeditious and summary disposal of cases through arbitration and settlement
between the parties were functioning as a voluntary and conciliatory agency
without any statutory backing for its decision although it had proved to be very
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
popular in providing a rather speedier system of administration of justice. In this
view of the matter, it was felt that a statutory support would not only easen the
burden of arrears in regular Courts but also take justice to the doorsteps of the
poor and the needy making it quicker and less expensive. Therefore, came the
Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987. The preamble to the said Act very aptly
states the object for which, the said statute has been enacted and is quoted as
under:-
"An Act to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and
competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society to
ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any
citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organise
Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes
justice on a basis of equal opportunity"
27. Chapter VI (Sections 19 to 22) of the said Act pertains to Lok Adalats. Lok
Adalat is defined under Section 2(d) of the said Act to mean a Lok Adalat
organised under Chapter VI. Section 19 refers to organisation of Lok Adalats and
is quoted as under :-
"19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.--(1) Every State Authority or
District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or
every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be,
Taluk Legal Services Committee may organize Lok Adalats at such
intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such
areas as it thinks fit.
(2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist of such
number of--
(a) serving or retired judicial officers; and
(b) other persons,
of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District
Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
High Court Legal Services Committee, or as the case may be, the
Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such Lok Adalat.
(3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in
clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats organised by the
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be such as may be
prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief
Justice of India
(4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in
clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats other than referred to in
sub-section (3) shall be such as may be prescribed by the State
Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at
a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in
respect of--
(i) any case pending before; or
(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not
brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organised:
Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of
any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under
any law."
28. Sub-Section (5) as above provides for jurisdiction of a Lok Adalat to
determine and to arrive at a compromise settlement between the parties to a
dispute. A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction in respect of any case pending
before any Court for which Lok Adalat is organised or in respect of any matter
which is falling within the jurisdiction of and is not brought before any Court for
which Lok Adalat is organised. However, it is specifically provided that a Lok
Adalat shall not have jursidction in respect of any case or matter relating to an
offence not compoundable under any law.
29. Section 20 provides for cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats and is quoted
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
as under :-
"20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.--(1) Where in any case
referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19,--
(i)(a) the parties thereof agree; or
(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the Court,
for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such
court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such
settlement; or
(ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be
taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat,
the Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:
Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-
clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving
a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat
under sub-section (1) of section19 may, on receipt of an application
from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of
sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined
by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for
determination:
Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except
after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other
party.
(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1)
or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the
Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at
a compromise or settlement between the parties.
(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it
under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise
or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the
principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.
(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no
compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties,
the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which
the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in
accordance with law.
(6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no
compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in
a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice
the parties to seek remedy in a court.
(7) Where the record of the case if returned under sub-section (5) to
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the
stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section
(1)."
30. As can been seen, Section 20 provides that where in any case referred to
in Section 19(5)(i), i.e. a case which is pending before any Court for which the
Lok Adalat is organized, the parties agree or one of the parties makes an
application to the Court for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement
and if such Court is prima-facie satisfied that there are chances of settlement, the
Court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat, after giving a reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the parties.
31. However, with respect to a matter, referred to in Section 19(5)(ii), upon
application received, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat may
refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for determination after giving an opportunity
of hearing to the parties.
32. Then sub-Sections (3) to (7) of Section 20 prescribe the procedure to be
followed by a Lok Adalat in respect of a case referred to it.
33. Section 21 provides that every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed
to be a decree of a Civil Court and shall be binding on all the parties to the
dispute and that no appeal shall lie to any Court.
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
34. As time went by, it was felt that the system of Lok Adalats provided in the
1987 Act resulted in delaying the dispensation of justice where the parties could
not arrive at any compromise for settlement in Lok Adalat and the case was
rendered to the Court of law or parties were advised to pursue appropriate
forum for redressal of the grievances. A need therefore was felt to amend the
law to introduce the stage of Pre-litigation Conciliation and Settlement by way
of Permanent Lok Adalats and the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment) Act,
2002 was brought in. The statement of objects and reasons of the 2002
Amendment Act inter alia read as under:
"The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to constitute
legal services authorities for providing free and competent legal
services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that
opportunities for securing justice were not denied to any citizen by
reason of economic or other disabilities and to organize Lok Adalats
to ensure that the operation of the legal system promoted justice on a
basis of equal opportunity. The system of Lok Adalat, which is an
innovative mechanism for alternate dispute resolution, has proved
effective for resolving disputes in a spirit of conciliation outside the
Court.
2. However, the major drawback in the existing scheme of
organisation of the Lok Adalats under Chapter VI of the said Act is
that the system of Lok Adalats is mainly based on compromise or
settlement between the parties. If the parties do not arrive at any
compromise or settlement, the case is either returned to the Court of
law or the parties are advised to seek remedy in a Court of law. This
causes unnecessary delay in the dispensation of justice. If Lok Adalats
are given power to decide the cases on merits in case parties fails to
arrive at any compromise or settlement, this problem can be tackled
to a great extent. Further, the cases which arise in relation to public
utility services such as Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi
Vidyut Board, etc., need to be settled urgently so that people get
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
justice without delay even at pre-litigation stage and thus most of the
petty cases which ought not to go in the regular Courts would be
settled at the pre-litigation stage itself which would result in reducing
the workload of the regular Courts to a great extent. It is, therefore,
proposed to amend the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987 to set up
Permanent Lok Adalats for providing compulsory pre-litigative
mechanism for conciliation and settlement of cases relating to public
utility services.
3. The salient features of proposed legislation are as follows :-
(i) to provide for the establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats which
shall consists (sic) of a Chairman who is or has been a District Judge
or Additional District Judge or has held judicial officer (sic) higher in
rank than that of the District Judge and two other persons having
adequate experience in public utility services;
(ii) the Permanent Lok Adalat shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of
one or more public utility services such as transport services of
passengers of goods by air, road and water, postal, telegraph or
telephone services, supply of power, light or water to the public by
any establishment, public conservancy or sanitation, services in
hospitals or dispensaries, and insurance services;
(iii) the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be
up to Rupees Ten Lakhs. However, the Central Government may
increase the said pecuniary jurisdiction from time to time. It shall
have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence
not compoundable under any law;
(iv) it also provides that before the dispute is brought before any
Court, any party to the dispute may make an application to the
Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of the dispute;
(v) where it appears to the Permanent Lok Adalat that there exist
elements of a settlement, which may be acceptable to the parties, it
shall formulate the terms of a possible settlement and submit them to
the parties for their observations and in case the parties reach an
agreement, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall pass an award in terms
thereof. In case parties to the dispute fail to reach an agreement, the
Permanent Lok Adalat shall decide the dispute on merits; and
(vi) every award made by the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be final
and binding on all the parties thereto and shall be by a majority of
the persons constituting the Permanent Lok Adalat."
35. Pursuant to the Amendment Act of 2002, Chapter VI-A (Sections 22A to
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
22E) entitled Pre-litigation Conciliation and Settlement which was inserted with
effect from 11th June, 2002 and assumes significance with respect to the issue
involved in this matter.
36. It would therefore be in the fitness of things to set out the relevant
provisions of said Act relating to Permanent Lok Adalats.
37. Section 22A is quoted as under:
22A. Definitions.-In this Chapter and for the purposes of sections 22
and 23, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "Permanent Lok Adalat" means a Permanent Lok Adalat
established under sub-section (1) of section 22B.
(b) "public utility service" means any-
(i) transport service for the carriage of passengers or goods by air,
road or water; or
(ii) postal, telegraph or telephone service; or
(iii) supply of power, light or water to the public by any
establishment; or
(iv) system of public conservancy or sanitation; or
(v) service in hospital or dispensary; or
(vi) insurance service,
and includes any service which the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be, may, in the public interest, by
notification, declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of
this Chapter."
(emphasis supplied)
38. The above Section 22A(a) defines a Permanent Lok Adalat established
under Section 22B(1) of the said Act. Section 22B relates to the establishment of
Permanent Lok Adalats. The Section is usefully quoted as under:
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
"22B. Establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats-(1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in section 19, the Central Authority or, as the case
may be, every State Authority shall, by notification, establish
Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and for exercising such
jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for
such areas as may be specified in the notification.
(2) ........."
39. A Central Authority and every State Authority has been mandated to
establish Permanent Lok Adalats at such places and for exercising such
jurisdiction in respect of one or more public utility services and for such areas as
may be notified. Section 22A(b) defines "public utility service" to mean the
services mentioned therein and includes any service which the Central
Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in public interest by
notification declare to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said
Chapter VI-A. The Government of Maharashtra has vide a Notification dated 10 th
March, 2011 declared pension services to be a public utility service for the
purposes of Chapter VI-A of the said Act. Accordingly, pension services are
public utility service as defined under Section 22A(b) of the said Act.
40. Also it is pertinent to note that Section 22B of the Act with respect to the
establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats specifically excludes anything contained
in Section 19 by the use of the words "notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 19".
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
41. Let us now examine Section 22C of the said Act which sets out the
procedure by which the Permanent Lok Adalat can take cognizance of cases
before it. The said Section is quoted as under:
"22C. Cognizance of cases by Permanent Lok Adalat.-
(1) Any party to a dispute may, before the dispute is brought before
any court, make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for the
settlement of dispute:
Provided that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in
respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under
any law:
Provided further that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall also not have
jurisdiction in the matter where the value of the property in dispute
exceeds ten lakh rupees:
Provided also that the Central Government, may, by notification,
increase the limit of ten lakh rupees specified in the second proviso
in consultation with the Central Authority.
(2) After an application is made under sub-section(1) to the
Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to that application shall invoke
jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute.
(3) Where an application is made to a Permanent Lok Adalat under
sub-section(1), it--
(a) shall direct each party to the application to file before it a written
statement, stating therein the facts and nature of dispute under the
application, points or issues in such dispute and grounds relied in
support of, or in opposition to, such points or issues, as the case may
be, and such party may supplement such statement with any
document and other evidence which such party deems appropriate in
proof of such facts and grounds and shall send a copy of such
statement together with a copy of such document and other
evidence, if any, to each of the parties to the application;
(b) may require any party to the application to file additional
statement before it at any stage of the conciliation proceedings;
(c) shall communicate any document or statement received by it
from any party to the application to the other party, to enable such
other party to present reply thereto.
(4) When statement, additional statement and reply, if any, have
been filed under sub-section(3), to the satisfaction of the Permanent
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
Lok Adalat, it shall conduct conciliation proceedings between the
parties to the application in such manner as it thinks appropriate
taking into account the circumstances of the dispute.
(5) The Permanent Lok Adalat shall, during conduct of conciliation
proceedings under sub-section(4), assist the parties in their attempt
to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute in an independent and
impartial manner.
(6) It shall be the duty of the every party to the application to
cooperate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat in
conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply
with the direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence
and other related documents before it.
(7) When a Permanent Lok Adalat, in the aforesaid conciliation
proceedings, is of opinion that there exist elements of settlement in
such proceedings which may be acceptable to the parties, it may
formulate the terms of a possible settlement of the dispute and give
to the parties concerned for their observations and in case the parties
reach at an agreement on the settlement of the dispute, they shall
sign the settlement agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat shall
pass an award in terms thereof and furnish a copy of the same to
each of the parties concerned.
(8) Where the parties fail to reach at an agreement under sub-section
(7), the Permanent Lok Adalat shall, if the dispute does not relate to
any offence, decide the dispute."
42. This section 22C provides for raising the dispute before a Permanent Lok
Adalat. Sub-section (1) provides that any party to a dispute may, before the
dispute is brought before any court make an application to the Permanent Lok
Adalat for settlement of dispute. However, a Permanent Lok Adalat has no
jurisdiction to deal with any matter relating to an offence not compoundable
under any law. The second proviso puts a cap on the pecuniary jurisdiction
providing that a Permanent Lok Adalat shall not have jurisdiction in the matter
where the value of the property in dispute exceeds ten lakh rupees, which
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
amount has been since raised to Rs.1 Crore. Section 22C(2) imposes a restriction
on the parties to a dispute after an application is made by any one of them for
invoking the jurisdiction of any Court in respect of the same dispute. Section
22C(3) provides for procedure to be followed by a Permanent Lok Adalat once
an application is made before it by any party to the dispute. This procedure
includes filing of a written statement by each party to the application stating
therein the facts and nature of the dispute and highlighting the points or issues
in such dispute and the documents and other evidence in support of their
respective written statement and exchange of copy of such written statement
together with copy of documents/other evidence. The Permanent Lok Adalat
may require any party to the application to file additional statement before it at
any stage of the conciliation proceedings. Any document or statement received
by Permanent Lok Adalat from any party to the application is given to the other
party. On completion of the above procedure, the Permanent Lok Adalat
proceeds with conciliation proceedings between the parties to the application
under sub-section (4) of Section 22-C. During conduct of the conciliation
proceedings under sub-section (4) of Section 22-C, the Permanent Lok Adalat is
obliged to assist the parties in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of
the dispute in an independent and impartial manner. Every party to the
application has a duty to co-operate in good faith with the Permanent Lok Adalat
in conciliation of the dispute relating to the application and to comply with the
direction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to produce evidence and other related
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
documents before it. On satisfaction that there is likelihood of settlement in the
proceedings, the Permanent Lok Adalat may formulate the terms of possible
settlement of the dispute and give the said terms to the parties for their
observations and where the parties reach an agreement on the settlement of the
dispute, they shall sign the settlement/agreement and the Permanent Lok Adalat
then passes an award in terms thereof and furnishes a copy of the same to each
of the parties concerned.
43. Section 22D of the Act refers to the procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat. It
mandates a Permanent Lok Adalat, while conducting the conciliation
proceedings or deciding a dispute on merit under the said Act to be guided by
the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles
of justice, and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The said Section is usefully quoted as under:
22D. Procedure of Permanent Lok Adalat.- The Permanent Lok
Adalat shall, while conducting conciliation proceedings or deciding a
dispute on merit under this Act, be guided by the principles of natural
justice, objectivity, fair play, equity and other principles of justice,
and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908) and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)."
44. Section 22-E accords finality to the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat
under sub-section (1) and in sub-section (4) provides that every award made by
the Permanent Lok Adalat shall be final and hence shall not be called in question
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
in any original suit, application or execution proceedings form mainly bone of
contention.
45. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to Section 22 which provides for
the powers of Lok Adalat and after the 2002 Amendment also for powers of
Permanent Lok Adalat.
22. Powers of Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat.- (1) The Lok
Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall, for the purposes of holding any
determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in
a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and
examining him on oath;
(b) the discovery and production of any document;
(c) the reception of evidence on affidavits;
(d) the requisitioning of any public record or document or copy
of such record or document from any court or office; and
(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in
sub-section (1), every Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall have
the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the
determination of any dispute coming before it.
(3) All proceedings before a Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat
shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of
sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and
every Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a
civil court for the purpose of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)."
46. It is pertinent to note that Section 22 of the said Act originally referred to
the powers of the Lok Adalat but after the Amendment Act of 2002, even the
Permanent Lok Adalat has been invested with the same powers and the said
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
Section 22 now which refers to powers of both the Lok Adalat and the
Permanent Lok Adalat. It provides that both the Lok Adalat and the Permanent
Lok Adalat have the same powers as vested in a Civil Court under the Code of
Civil Procedure though not bound by the said Code. As can be seen from Section
22 quoted above, the Permanent Lok Adalat for the purposes of any
determination under the said Act has the same powers as are vested in a Civil
Court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit in respect of taking
evidence viz., Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat is empowered to summon
and enforce the attendance of any witness, to discover and produce any
document, to receive evidence on affidavits, to requisition any public record or
document or copy of such record or document from any court or office. Sub-
section (2) of Section 22 provides that that the Permanent Lok Adalat also has
powers to specify its own procedure for determination of any dispute coming
before it. Further Sub-section (3) of Section 22 clearly provides that the
proceedings before a Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be judicial
proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian
Penal Code and every Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to
be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. In other words, every Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok
Adalat has been vested with the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil
Procedure and is empowered to summon and enforce the attendance of witness,
to discover and produce any document, to receive evidence on affidavits to
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
requisition any public record or document or copy of such record or document
from any court or office.
47. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bar Council of
India V/s. Union of India (supra) has very succinctly dealt with Chapter VI-A
relating to the scope of the powers of Permanent Lok Adalat in contradistinction
with the powers of a Civil Court. Paragraphs 18 to 22, 28 and 29 are useful and
are quoted as under:
"18. Chapter VI-A inserted by the 2002 Amendment Act in 1987 Act,
as its title suggests, provides for pre-litigation conciliation and
settlement procedure. The disputes relating to public utility service
like transport service for carriage of passengers or goods by air, road
or water or postal, telegraph or telephone service or supply of power,
light or water or public conservancy system or sanitation or service in
hospital or dispensary or insurance service, etc., in the very scheme of
things deserve to be settled expeditiously. Prolonged dispute in
respect of the above matters between the service provider and an
aggrieved party may result in irretrievable damage to either party to
the dispute. Today, with increasing number of cases, the judicial
courts are not able to cope with the heavy burden of inflow of cases
and the matters coming before them. The disputes in relation to
public utility service need urgent attention with focus on their
resolution at threshold by conciliation and settlement and if for any
reason such effort fails, then to have such disputes adjudicated
through an appropriate mechanism as early as may be possible. With
large population in the country and many public utility services being
provided by various service providers, the disputes in relation to these
services are not infrequent between the service providers and
common man. Slow motion procedures in the judicial courts are not
conducive for adjudication of disputes relating to public utility
service.
19. The statement of objects and reasons itself spells out the salient
features of Chapter VI-A. By bringing in this law, the litigation
concerning public utility service is sought to be nipped in the bud by
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
first affording the parties to such dispute an opportunity to settle
their dispute through the endeavours of the Permanent Lok Adalat
and if such effort fails then to have the dispute between the parties
adjudicated through the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat. The
mechanism provided in Chapter VI-A enables a party to a dispute
relating to public utility service to approach the Permanent Lok
Adalat for the settlement of dispute before the dispute is brought
before any court.
20. Parliament can definitely set up effective alternative institutional
mechanisms or make arrangements which may be more efficacious
than the ordinary mechanism of adjudication of disputes through the
judicial courts. Such institutional mechanisms or arrangements by no
stretch of imagination can be said to be contrary to constitutional
scheme or against the rule of law. The establishment of Permanent
Lok Adalats and conferring them jurisdiction up to a specific
pecuniary limit in respect of one or more public utility services as
defined in Section 22-A(b) before the dispute is brought before any
court by any party to the dispute is not anathema to the rule of law.
Instead of ordinary civil courts, if other institutional mechanisms are
set up or arrangements are made by the Parliament with an
adjudicatory power, in our view, such institutional mechanisms or
arrangements cannot be faulted on the ground of arbitrariness or
irrationality.
21. The Permanent Lok Adalats under the 1987 Act (as amended by
2002 Amendment Act) are in addition to and not in derogation of
Fora provided under various statutes. This position is accepted by the
Central Government in their counter-affidavit.
22. It is necessary to bear in mind that the disputes relating to public
utility services have been entrusted to Permanent Lok Adalats only if
the process of conciliation and settlement fails. The emphasis is on
settlement in respect of disputes concerning public utility services
through the medium of Permanent Lok Adalat. It is for this reason
that sub-section (1) of Section 22-C states in no unambiguous terms
that any party to a dispute may before the dispute is brought before
any court make an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for
settlement of dispute. Thus, settlement of dispute between the parties
in matters of public utility services is the main theme. However,
where despite the endeavours and efforts of the Permanent Lok
Adalat the settlement between the parties is not through and the
parties are required to have their dispute determined and
adjudicated, to avoid delay in adjudication of dispute relating to
public utility services, the Parliament has intervened and conferred
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
power of adjudication upon the Permanent Lok Adalat. Can the
power conferred on Permanent Lok Adalats to adjudicate the disputes
between the parties concerning public utility service up to a specific
pecuniary limit, if they do not relate to any offence, as provided
under Section 22-C(8), be said to be unconstitutional and irrational?
We think not. It is settled law that an authority empowered to
adjudicate the disputes between the parties and act as a tribunal may
not necessarily have all the trappings of the court. What is essential is
that it must be a creature of statute and should adjudicate the dispute
between the parties before it after giving reasonable opportunity to
them consistent with the principles of fair play and natural justice. It
is not a constitutional right of any person to have the dispute
adjudicated by means of a court only. Chapter VI-A has been enacted
to provide for an institutional mechanism, through the establishment
of Permanent Lok Adalats for settlement of disputes concerning
public utility service before the matter is brought to the court and in
the event of failure to reach any settlement, empowering the
Permanent Lok Adalat to adjudicate such dispute if it does not relate
to any offence.
28. Sine qua non of taking cognizance of a dispute concerning public
utility service by the Permanent Lok Adalat is that neither party to a
dispute has approached the civil court. There is no merit in the
submission of the petitioner that the service provider may pre-empt
the consideration of a dispute by a court or a forum under special
statute by approaching the Permanent Lok Adalat established under
Chapter VI-A of the 1987 Act and, thus, depriving the user or
consumer of such public utility service of an opportunity to have the
dispute adjudicated by a civil court or a forum created under special
statute. In the first place, the jurisdiction of fora created under the
Special Statutes has not been taken away in any manner whatsoever
by the impugned provisions. As noted above, the Permanent Lok
Adalats are in addition to and not in derogation of fora provided
under Special Statutes. Secondly, not a single instance has been cited
where a provider of service of public utility in a dispute with its user
has approached the Permanent Lok Adalat first. The submission is
unfounded and misplaced.
29. The alternative institutional mechanism in Chapter VI-A with
regard to the disputes concerning public utility service is intended to
provide an affordable, speedy and efficient mechanism to secure
justice. By not making applicable the Code of Civil Procedure and the
statutory provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no
compromise on the quality of determination of dispute since the
Permanent Lok Adalat has to be objective, decide the dispute with
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
fairness and follow the principles of natural justice. Sense of justice
and equity continue to guide the Permanent Lok Adalat while
conducting conciliation proceedings or when the conciliation
proceedings fail, in deciding a dispute on merit."
48. From a careful review of the aforesaid provisions, it emerges that Chapter
VI inter alia provides for jurisdiction and cognizance of cases/matter by Lok
Adalats either in respect of a case pending before a Court or a matter falling
within the jurisdiction but not brought before one whereas Chapter VI-A
provides for Pre-Litigation Conciliation and Settlement i.e. a stage before a case/
matter is filed or registered in a Court. It is pertinent to note that the word
"case" has been defined in Section 2(1)(a) of the said Act and includes a suit or
any proceeding before a Court but the word "matter" has not been defined. Even
though the definition of "case" is an inclusive one, the word "matter" would
assume a general or ordinary meaning as used in common parlance.
Interestingly, like "matter" the said Act also does not define the word "dispute".
Therefore, the word "dispute" is also to be understood as having an ordinary
meaning as understood generally viz. a disagreement or a difference.
49. That is why Section 22-C(1) provides that any party to a dispute, before
the dispute is brought before any Court i.e. before it becomes a case, may make
an application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of the dispute. The
provision of Sections 19 and 20 would therefore have no application for the
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
purposes of Section 22-C as those provisions evidently pertain to the procedure
before a Lok Adalat and not a Permanent Lok Adalat. I am therefore of the view
that it is not necessary for filing any application under Section 22-C(1) that a
case be pending in a Court or that the parties agree to referring the case or that
a matter is referred by a Court. All that is necessary is that there is a dispute as
in a disagreement or a difference which has not been brought before Court. And
then any party to such dispute can make an application to the Permanent Lok
Adalat for settlement of the dispute provided it relates to a public utility service
as defined in section 22A(b) of the said Act.
50. In this regard, I draw support from a recent decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme in case of Canara Bank v/s. G S Jayarama in Civil Appeal No. 3872 of
2022 (authored by His Lordship Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud)
delivered on 19th May, 2022, which has exhaustively considered the scope of the
powers of the Permanent Lok Adalat in comparison to the powers of a Lok
Adalat under the said Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and observed in
paragraph 22 that parties can approach Permanent Lok Adalat directly under
Section 22-C (1) while Lok Adalats are sent their cases by Courts where the
dispute is pending. It has also been observed that an application made to a
Permanent Lok Adalat ousts the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The said paragraph
22 is quoted as under :-
"22. While the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat is limited
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
to disputes regarding public utility services, crucially, its powers are
wider than the Lok Adalat in many respects:
(I) Parties can approach Permanent Lok Adalats directly under
Section 22-C(1), while Lok Adalats are sent their cases by courts
where the dispute is pending (under Section 20(1)) or by the
Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under Section
19(1) after they receive it from the parties (under Section 20(2)).
Indeed, an application made to the Permanent Lok Adalat ousts the
jurisdiction of a civil court (under Section 22-C(2));
(ii) Permanent Lok Adalats can direct the parties to submit written
submissions, replies, evidence and documents (Section 22-C(3));
(iii) Other then attempting conciliation with parties, the Permanent
Lok Adalats can also decide a dispute on its merits if the settlement
fails (Section-C(7)); and
(iv) Permanent Lok Adalats can transmit an award made
to a civil court having local jurisdiction, and such civil court shall
execute the order as if it were a decree made by that court (Section
22-E(5)).
The entrustment of wider powers to the Permanent Lok Adalat is
supported by its membership, comprising of a District Judge or
Additional District Judge or someone who has held judicial office
higher in rank than that of a District Judge (as compared to only
judicial officers in Lok Adalats)."
(emphasis supplied)
51. The Apex Court has in the aforementioned decision also observed that the
conciliation proceedings envisaged under Section 22-C are mandatory before the
Permanent Lok Adalat can decide a dispute on merits. The relevant portion of
paragraph 24 is extracted as under :-
"Section 22-C provides a step-by-step scheme on how a matter is to
proceed before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The first step is the filing
of the application which ousts the jurisdiction of other civil courts, in
accordance with sub-Sections (1) and (2). The second step is the
parties filing requisite submissions and documents before the
Permanent Lok Adalat, in accordance with sub-Section (3). On the
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
completion of the third step to its satisfaction, the Permanent Lok
Adalat can move to the fourth step of attempting conciliation
between the parties, in accordance with sub-Sections (4), (5) and (6).
Subsequently, in the fifth step in accordance with sub-Section (7), the
Permanent Lok Adalat has to draw up terms of settlement on the
basis of the conciliation proceedings, and propose them to the parties.
If the parties agree, the Permanent Lok Adalat has to pass an award
on the basis of the agreed upon terms of settlement. Only if the
parties fail to reach an agreement on the fifth step, can the
Permanent Lok Adalat proceed to the final step and decide the
dispute on its merits."
52. It has also been observed in the said decision that Permanent Lok Adalat
could proceed for adjudication of a dispute on merits only after attempting and
failing to generate a settlement between the parties.
53. True therefore that in respect of Respondent's grievance, neither any case
is pending before any Court nor any reference of the same has been made to the
Permanent Lok Adalat. But as noted above, pendency of a case before a Court or
a reference by a Court is not the pre-condition for approaching the Permanent
Lok Adalat. Parties can approach Permanent Lok Adalats directly under Section
22-C(1), before a dispute is brought before any court since the provisions with
respect to Permanent Lok Adalats have been introduced to urgently settle
disputes in relation to public utility services at the pre-litigation stage so that
people get justice without delay.
54. Therefore, the arguments of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner with
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
respect to the applicability of Sections 19 and 20 to Permanent Lok Adalats, is
without any force. In fact as mentioned earlier, Section 22B of the said Act
specifically excludes anything contained in Section 19 by the use of the words
"notwithstanding anything contained in Section 19. Chapter VI-A has been
specifically included for Permanent Lok Adalats and wherever there has been a
need to apply the other provisions to a Permanent Lok Adalat, that has been
specifically provided for.
55. Section 25 of the said Act is also pertinent, when it says that the
provisions of the said Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the time in force. The said Act has an
overriding effect.
56. As noted above and also observed in the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Canara Bank v/s. G S Jayarama (supra), the Permanent Lok Adalat has
been established under Section 22-B(1) of the said Act for exercising
jurisdiction in respect of public utility services and can carry out both
conciliatory and adjudicatory functions in accordance with the procedure under
Section 22-C of the said Act. The Apex Court by the said decision has also
affirmed that the adjudicatory power of the PLA is constitutional and it is
empowered to decide dispute on merits. The Lok Adalat on the other hand
however has no adjudicatory power and can only conduct conciliatory
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
proceedings. The Scheme of the said Act makes clear the distinction between
the two types of Lok Adalats.
57. Chapter VI A of the said Act provides for establishment of a Permanent
Lok Adalat. A Permanent Lok Adalat is to have jurisdiction in respect of one or
more public utility services for areas which are specified in a Notification by a
State Authority which is the State Legal Services Authority. A public utility
service means the services which are prescribed in Section 22A(b) and include
services which may be notified as such by the State Government or the Central
Government in public interest. There is also no dispute that pension has been
included as a public utility service as defined under Section 22A(b) of the said
Act pursuant to Notification dated 10 th March, 2011. Section 22C of the Act
clearly authorizes a party to a dispute before bringing it before a Court to make
an Application to the Permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of dispute. The
Respondent is one such party which has made an Application under Section
22C(1) of the Act. That the recovery of the purported surplus amount was made
by the Petitioner from Respondent's gratuity amount and pension benefits is
undisputed. Though Respondent entered into extensive correspondence with the
Petitioner during the period from 2011 to 2018, but the same evidently did not
meet with any favourable response and therefore, the Respondent herein filed
an Application in respect of a dispute relating to recovery of his pension that he
was given pension on the basic pay of 4,830/- instead of Rs.6,300/- and that he
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
is entitled to get a difference in the pay-scale including sixth pay commission to
the extent of Rs.7,98,675/-, which is below one crore. The cause of action is
therefore a continuous one and Respondent's application cannot be said to be
time barred. The Respondent is therefore eligible to make an application before
the PLA. The eligibility to file Applications / Claims under other Acts does not
and would not take away right of a person to make a claim if eligible under the
provisions of the said Act. In fact even if the Respondent is considered as an
industrial workman as claimed by Petitioner, even then under Section 12(f) of
the said Act, he would be entitled to legal services under the Act. Therefore, the
argument of the Respondent that the application by Respondent is not
covered by Section 19(5) or 22(1) or that Respondent ought to approach
other fora or under other laws is also without merit. The Petitioner has
already filed a written statement in the proceedings pending before the PLA. The
conciliation proceedings having failed; a joint purshis of Petitioner and
Respondent was made for adjudication in the matter and a direction has already
been given by the PLA regarding filing of original service book of the
Respondent. All this has in my view been done on the basis of the procedure set
forth in Section 22C of the said Act. As also noted above, the PLA is a deemed to
be a Civil Court and the proceedings thereunder are to be deemed to be judicial
proceedings. Though not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, it has all the
powers of a Civil Court while taking evidence and pass an Award under section
22C of the said Act. The Award of a Permanent Lok Adalat would be deemed to
Priya Soparkar
WP-848-2020-Judgment.odt
be a decree of a Civil Court. It is not in dispute that Respondent, now a
Pensioner worked with the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Pune Division till
his retirement, and his work place was in Pune. Besides he is getting pension
from Bank in Pune which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the said PLA.
The PLA, Pune would thus have jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the
Application filed by the Respondent. The above discussion leads to an
inviolable conclusion that the Permanent Lok Adalat, Pune, has jurisdiction
over the Respondent's dispute with Petitioner.
58. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the PLA, Pune has
jurisdiction to entertain and determine the dispute between Petitioner and
Respondent pending before it. The order dated 29 th June, 2019 passed by the
PLA, Pune below Exhibit 14 in Dispute Application No.454 of 2018 does not call
for any interference.
59. The Petition is dismissed. No costs.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
Priya Soparkar
