Lok Adalat Promotes Social Harmony, Its Award Can't Be Challenged On Technical Grounds Unless Fraud Or Mischief Established: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the validity of awards passed by National Lok Adalat cannot be challenged only on technical count, unless it is established on record that any fraud or mischief was involved.

“It is clear that the award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be final and the same cannot be assailed in a routine manner, before the Writ Court unless allegation of fraud are there against a party. An award can be assailed only if the same is passed without jurisdiction or is obtained through impersonation or playing fraud with the Court.”

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (“the Act”) which lays down that every award passed by the Lok Adalat is deemed decree of a civil court and is final and binding on all parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.

Further reference was made to the Supreme Court case of K. Srinivasappa & Ors. Vs. M. Mallamma & Ors. which held that even though writ petition was maintainable against an award passed by the Lok Adalat, especially when it had been filed alleging fraud in the manner of obtaining the award, a writ court could not, in a causal manner, without any reasoning, set aside that order.

The Court was hearing civil writ petition filed by the by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (“RSRTC”) against the awards passed by National Lok Adalat in relation to certain dispute with some of its workmen who were terminated from service. At the same time, petitions were filed by those workmen seeking enforcement of such orders and consequent reinstatement in service.

It was the case of the counsel for the RSRTC that the award was passed without the consent of RSRTC. The counsel submitted that the authorized counsel who were appearing in the matter on behalf of RSRTC were not present when the award was passed. Rather, the settlement award was signed by another counsel who although was empaneled counsel of RSRTC, regularly appearing on its behalf, but was not authorized to sign the settlement on behalf of RSRTC in that matter. Hence, the award was argued to be legally unsustainable in the eyes of law.

Rejecting the argument submitted by the counsel, the Court highlighted that the award passed by the National Lok Adalat was in terms of the RSRTC office order or policy that was also signed by the counsel who signed the award on behalf of RSRTC. Furthermore, the Court also observed that RSRTC had put forth no evidence revealing any explanation sought from the counsel who signed the award without any instructions from RSRTC.

“RSRTC has not placed on record any document revealing as to whether the RSRTC has taken any explanation from the said counsel as to why he had signed the settlement awards without any instructions from the RSRTC, rather he has been entrusted with further briefs of the RSRTC. This fact itself shows that the RSRTC has tried to wriggle out of a valid compromise by taking such spurious plea which cannot be countenanced.”

Highlighting the finality of the award passed by National Lok Adalat, the Court held that the award was an estoppel against RSRTC and binding on the parties, and RSRTC cannot wriggle out of it by taking this afterthought plea. The Court also referred to another Apex Court case of P.T. Thomas v Thomas Job in which it was held that court's attempt should be to give enforceability to the award passed by National Lok Adalat and not to defeat the same on technical grounds.

The Court also observed that amicable resolution of disputes was a sine qua non for social peace and harmony. Lok Adalat aimed to provide cost-effective, timely and amicable resolutions of the disputes, reducing the case load of the courts and promoting social harmony. It was a way where both parties win and none loses.

Accordingly, the petition filed by RSRTC was set aside and the ones filed by the workmen were allowed, directing their reinstatement in service.

Title: Virendra Singh & Ors. v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 234

Click Here To Read/Download Order