IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.1962 of 2010 P.Pushpanathan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram Division-3, Kancheepuram district. 2.The Presiding Officer, 1st Additional Labour Court, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104. 3.The Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat, Labour Court, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that the second respondent attitude and procedure including passed an Award as dismissed for default in I.D.No.246 of 2006 on 09.12.2009 after the agreement was arrived on 2.3.2007 before the third respondent is illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran For Respondent : Mr.Jayesh B. Dolia for R1 (Takes notice) ORDER Heard both sides. The petitioner, who was a Conductor employed in the first respondent Corporation, has come forward to challenge the award passed by the second respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.246 of 2006, dated 09.12.2009 in dismissing the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. 2.According to the petitioner, an agreement was allegedly reached on 2.3.2007 before the third respondent (Lok Adalat). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thereafter, no award can be passed and hence the ex-parte award was illegal. It is seen from the records that the petitioner, who was working as a Conductor was dismissed from service on 3.3.1999 on account of his unauthorised absence from 4.6.1997 to 22.6.1997. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai. In the conciliation proceedings, the management took the stand that the petitioner cannot be reinstated in view of the misconduct committed by him. 3.On the strength of the failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement as per Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Chennai. The I Additional Labour Court (2nd respondent), to which the matter was assigned, took the dispute in I.D.No.246 of 2006 and issued notice to the first respondent Corporation. On behalf of the Corporation, one V.Udayakumar entered appearance on 19.7.2006. Thereafter when the matter came up on 5.1.2007, since no settlement was reached between both sides, the matter was adjourned to 19.2.2007. On 19.2.2007, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner. Subsequently, when the matter came up on 2.3.2007, it was adjourned for reporting settlement. Subsequently, since no counter statement filed, it was posted to 27.8.2007. The first respondent filed a counter statement on 27.9.2007 and the matter was posted for enquiry on 23.1.2008. Subsequently, the matter was called on several dates. On 09.12.2009, the petitioner was absent at 11.15 a.m. and even the counsel was not present. Since the matter was posted for enquiry and sufficient time was given, the dispute was dismissed by the 2nd respondent Labour Court by an order dated 09.12.2009. 4.In the meanwhile, the petitioner sent a letter, dated 14.6.2007 to the first respondent Corporation, stating that three months before, his I.D. was sent to Lok Adalat and that the officers of the Corporation had promised him to give employment, but it was not given. He had allegedly enclosed a final order dated 3.3.1999. 5.If the petitioner was aggrieved by the dismissal of the industrial dispute, Rule 48(2) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Dispute Rules, 1958 provides for setting aside an ex-parte order within 15 days, failing which with condonation delay application the same can be filed. As per the rules, the petitioner is entitled for get a free copy of the Award passed by the Labour Court. But, the petitioner did not choose to avail any of those remedies. On the contrary, the petitioner had sent a letter, dated 10.11.2009 to the Labour Court stating that the management of the corporation had agreed to reinstate the petitioner without backwages and with service continuity, but no order has been given to him. Therefore, he wanted a copy of the Lok Adalat award dated 2.3.2007. The petitioner did not get any reply. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.The counsel for the petitioner on coming to know about the ex-parte award, filed a copy application on 4.1.2010 and subsequently, received a certified copy on 8.1.2010. It is not clear as to why no application was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the Ex-parte Award. On the contrary, the present writ petition was filed with a curious prayer inasmuch as the ex- parte award dated 9.12.2009, should be dismissed in view of the agreement reached on 2.3.2007 before the Lok Adalat. 7.Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that once the matter is seized by the Lok Adalat and an agreement is filed, the question of the Labour Court further getting jurisdiction will not arise. Under Section 20(5) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, if no award was made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no promise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the records of the case shall be returned to the court, from which a reference has been received for disposal in accordance with law. Therefore, he contended that on the strength of the agreement reached between the parties, there should have been Award and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to pass an ex-parte award on a concluded decree. Hence it should be set aside. 8.He also contended that Lok Adalat should also pass orders in terms of Section 20(6) and in case of no award, he can seek further relief from the court. In the present case, no such Award was passed. After records of the case were returned to the court, the Court can proceed from the stage in which the earlier reference was made and no notice was given to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, he sought for setting aside the Ex-parte award and to give fresh opportunity. 9.The learned counsel for the petitioner also enclosed a copy of so-called settlement arrived before the Lok Adalat in page 13 of the typed set of papers. In that document only the signatures of the petitioner and another person who had signed for the counsel for petitioner on 2.3.2007 alone were found. It is not clear as to how this could be considered as a settlement as only one side had signed the so called settlement. In order to verify these submissions, this court summoned the original records from the Labour Court. The Registry accordingly summoned the records and it was forwarded by the Labour Court on 5.2.2010. 10.A perusal of the notes papers showed that excepting an endorsement on 8.1.2007 that a settlement was mooted out, on request of both sides the I.D. was adjourned for reporting settlement. There is no reference to any Lok Adalat proceedings mentioned therein. Further, the matter was called twice for reporting settlement and thereafter on 18.8.2007 it was posted for enquiry. In the meanwhile, a counter statement was also filed by the first respondent on 27.9.2007 and thereafter, a further opportunity was given. There was no sign or trace that the matter https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was being referred to Lok Adalat. Even the petitioner in his affidavit stated that it was referred to the third respondent Lok Adalat on 2.3.2007. But the Labour Court's endorsement for that date in the court proceedings did not show any such reference to Lok Adalat by the third respondent. On the contrary, his claim was that he sent a letter on 10.11.2009 to the second respondent under the RTI Act, claiming to get a copy of the Award, dated 2.3.2007, but it was not fruitful. It is because there is no such order in existence either on 2.3.2007 or any other subsequent date. 11.After the so-called parleys before a non existent Lok Adalat, the first respondent themselves have filed a counter statement in the I.D. before the Labour Court resisting the claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner should have attended the case before the Labour Court. In his absence, his counsel should have appeared before the Labour Court with due diligence. But, all of a sudden, he came forward to file a case of this nature with an unsubstantiated allegations, which cannot be welcomed by this court. 12.The counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that Lok Adalats are established to solve the dispute through mutual settlements. It was also submitted that the award passed by the Lok Adalat is a decree and should be enforced by courts. He further stated that in the teeth of such decree, the impugned award was made without jurisdiction. 13.All these submissions have no relevance to the facts on hand. The so-called agreement produced in page 13 of the typed set can never be said to be a settlement between the parties as it contained only the signatures of the petitioner and an another counsel representing the counsel for petitioner. In the absence of any settlement between the parties, the question of any Award being passed will not arise. In the present case, even the notes papers did not reveal that the matter was sent for being settled through Lok Adalat. 14.In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Ganpat Raj reported in 2006 (8) SCC 364. The following passages found in paragraphs 7 and 8 may be usefully extracted below: "7.The specific language used in sub- section (3) of Section 20 makes it clear that the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or settlement between the parties. Two crucial terms in sub-section (3) and (5) of Section 20 are "compromise" and "settlement". The former expression means settlement of differences by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reciprocal modification of demands. As per Termes de la Ley, "compromise is a mutual promise of two or more parties that are at controversy". As per Bouvier it is "an agreement between two or more persons, who, to avoid a law suit, amicably settle their differences, on such terms as they can agree upon". The word "compromise" implies some element of accommodation on each side. It is not apt to describe total surrender. (See NFU Development Trust Ltd., (1973 (1) All ER 135)). A compromise is always bilateral and means mutual adjustment. "Settlement" is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. The case at hand did not involve compromise or settlement and could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat. If no compromise or settlement is or could be arrived at, no order can be passed by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the disposal of Civil Writ Petition No.943 of 2000 filed by the respondent is clearly impermissible. 8.What was challenged in Writ Petition No.16246 of 2004 to which this appeal relates related to the powers of disposal of cases by the Lok Adalats. In view of the findings recorded that the matter could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat, the High Court ought to have directed restoration of the writ petition filed by the respondent i.e. Civil Writ Petition No.943 of 2000 for disposal in accordance with law." 15.Therefore, the emphasis under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act is that the settlement between the parties must be produced before the Lok Adalat so as to enable it to pass an award in terms of settlement. It is only when such a settlement is made, an award can be made. Therefore, the sine qua non for passing an award is the settlement between the parties. 16.The above view was also reenforced by the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ananto (dead) and another reported in 2007 (10) SCC 748. 17.Notwithstanding this, the counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.T.Thomas Vs. Thomas Job reported in 2005 (6) SCC 478. He relied upon paragraph 24 of the said judgment, wherein it was stated that the award of the Lok Adalat is final and permanent which is equivalent to a decree executable and it is an ending to the litigation among parties. This overlooks the fact that in the present case, no such proceedings had taken place before the Loki Adalat https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ culminating an award. 18.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this court in M.I.Ibrahim Kutty Vs. Indian Overseas Bank reported in AIR 2005 MADRAS 335, wherein it was stated that every award of the Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court. The format of the award when it is filed before the court, though it is not statutorily prescribed, a reading of the terms of the award must make it at par with the decree. In the present case, there is no such decree in existence. Even the so-called settlement did not contain the signatures of the first respondent management. 19.The arguments addressed by the petitioner do not help his case. On the contrary, the court had to spend considerable time in trying to find out what exactly is the case projected by the petitioner. When there is no award in the eye of law under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, then no fault can be found on the Labour Court in proceeding with the I.D. and in the absence of the petitioner's cooperation, dismissing it for want of prosecution. 20.The petitioner is aware of the ex-parte award. Rule 48 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules provides for remedy to restore an ex-parte Award. The petitioner instead of moving the Labour Court with an appropriate application, has made mountain out of a mole hill and made all kinds of submissions which were neither warranted on the facts of the case nor help the case of the petitioner. Time and again this court had emphasised that in case of an ex-parte award, parties must move the same labour court giving reasons for their absent and have their case restored on file. 21.In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and vexatious. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy / Sub Asst.Registrar vvk To 1.The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Villupuram Division-3, Kancheepuram district. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Presiding Officer, 1st Additional Labour Court, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104. 3.The Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat, Labour Court, High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104. W.P.NO.1962 of 2010 VS(CO) EM/23.2.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/