In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has upheld the awards passed by the National Lok Adalat, directing the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) to implement the orders in favour of the employees without any further delay. The court dismissed multiple petitions filed by RSRTC challenging the legality of the awards, stating that “amicable resolution of disputes is a sine qua non for social peace and harmony,” and that such awards should not be set aside on mere technical grounds.
Background of the Case:
The case, Virendra Singh & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14440/2023 and connected petitions), revolved around a batch of writ petitions that were filed following the awards passed by the National Lok Adalat on November 12, 2022. These awards ordered the reinstatement of several employees of RSRTC, including conductors and other staff, without back wages but with continuity of service for the purposes of pension and gratuity.
The controversy began when employees like Virendra Singh, a conductor who was terminated from service on December 26, 2014, for allegedly allowing passengers to travel without tickets, challenged their termination. The employees sought reinstatement, arguing that their termination was unjust and violated principles of natural justice.
Important Legal Issues:
The central legal issue in this case was whether the awards passed by the National Lok Adalat were binding and final, particularly when RSRTC contended that the settlements were reached without proper authorization or consent from their legal representatives. The RSRTC argued that the awards were void as they were allegedly signed by a panel counsel who was not duly authorized.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
The case was heard by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand. In a detailed judgment pronounced on August 31, 2024, the court observed that the awards passed by the Lok Adalat have the same effect as a decree of a civil court under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and are binding on all parties involved.
Quoting the court’s decision, Justice Dhand emphasized, “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 allegations 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 court noted that the RSRTC’s petitions were based solely on a technical argument that the awards were not signed by an authorized counsel. However, the court found that Mr. O.P. Sheoran, who signed the settlements, was a standing counsel for RSRTC and regularly represented the corporation in various matters before the court. Therefore, the RSRTC’s claim that Mr. Sheoran lacked authority was dismissed by the court.
Justice Dhand further remarked, “Such consent awards act as estoppel against the RSRTC, and the same are binding on the parties, from which the RSRTC cannot wriggle out by taking an afterthought plea that its lawyer was not authorized to enter into such settlement.”
The court underscored the importance of Lok Adalats in promoting social harmony and reducing the case backlog, stating, “Disputes and conflicts dissipate valuable time, effort, and money of the society. Any conflict which raises its head should be nipped in the bud.”
Key Observations and Directives:
1. The court directed the RSRTC to comply with the Lok Adalat awards and reinstate the employees within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. If the RSRTC fails to comply within the stipulated time, it will have to compensate each workman with Rs. 50,000.
2. The court dismissed all writ petitions filed by the RSRTC challenging the Lok Adalat awards and allowed the petitions filed by the workmen for their implementation.
3. In its concluding remarks, the court reiterated the binding nature of Lok Adalat awards, stating that they could not be overturned without compelling reasons such as fraud or lack of jurisdiction.
Parties and Legal Representation:
The petitioners in the main case were Virendra Singh and others, represented by advocates Mr. Sumit Kumar Jain, Mr. G.L. Sharma, and Mr. Ankul Gupta. The RSRTC and its officers were represented by Senior Advocate Mr. R.N. Mathur, assisted by Mr. Anubodh Jain.
