Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 848 OF 2020
The Chief Administrative Officer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, CIDCO Bhavan, South Desk, Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400614. … Petitioner
-------
Mr.Ajit R. Pitale for Petitioner.
Mr.Padmanabh Pise i/b.P.Padmanabh & Associates for Respondent.
-------
JUDGMENT
1. This is a Petition filed by the Chief Administrative Officer - Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran challenging the order dated 29th 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 working under the direction, control and supervision of the State of Maharashtra.
3. The Respondent was appointed as a Typist on 26th 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 30th 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 3rd 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 Rs.4,830/- basic pay entered into further protracted correspondence with Petitioner seeking entitlement of the difference in pay scale including 6th 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.
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 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 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 24th 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 30th 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 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 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 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 10th March, 2011 whereby, pension 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 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 30th 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 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 3rd January, 1977 by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. It provides that the State 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 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 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 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 subclause (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 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.
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 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
(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 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: “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 10th 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
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 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 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 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 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 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. Subsection (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 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 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 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 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 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 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
(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 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 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 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 10th 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 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 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 29th 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.)