THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1368 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 17.11.2008, in E.P.No.87 of 2007 in P.L.C.No.309 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said Execution Petition filed by the petitioners herein under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, seeking arrest and detention of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for not obeying the award, dated 25.09.2004, passed by the District Legal Services Authority, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents 1 and 3 to 5 though served with notices. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo stating that the 2nd respondent is not a necessary party. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners herein claim to be the legal representatives of one Satya Raju, who was a seaman employed in the 1st respondent company and who is said to have died while on duty. It is stated that the claim made by the petitioners before the District Legal Services Authority was taken on file as a Pre Litigation Case and a notice was issued to the respondents and thereafter compromise was effected between the parties and award was also passed on 25.09.2004 in P.L.C.No.309 of 2003 under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), wherein it was agreed that the amount allocated by the employer be deposited in a Nationalized bank in the name of the insurer and the amount allocated to the next of kin be distributed among the 1st petitioner-Pilla Mahalakshmi; 2n d respondent-Pilla Lioni and 3rd respondent-Pushpa, after deducting an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- towards discharge of the debts through the caste elder-Polayya. It is stated that even after the award was passed, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has not honoured the same. Hence, petitioners filed E.P.No.87 of 2007 under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that subsequent to the filing of the Execution Petition, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has deposited the entire amount due and payable under the award into the civil Court to the credit of E.P.No.87 of 2007. However, the entire amount due as per the award has since been deposited, the question of proceeding further against the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, does not arise. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that though the matter ended in compromise and award was passed by the District Legal Services Authority in terms of the said compromise, in the impugned order, the learned District Judge observed that the award is not valid and enforceable and the remedy of the parties is to apply before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and till then the amount shall be in the deposit of the civil Court. 6. The truth of the award is not questioned by the 5th respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Admittedly, award passed by the District Legal Services Authority has attained finality and the same was not questioned by any of the claimants or by the 5th respondent-Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Section 25 of the Act. 7. Section 25 of the Act states that the provisions of the Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 8. In view of the over-riding effect given to the provisions of the Act under Section 25 of the Act, while giving effect to the provisions of the Act, the observation of the learned District Judge in the impugned order that the remedy of the parties is to approach before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, is untenable and the same is accordingly set aside. The parties are at liberty to approach the District Court for implementation of the terms of the award by filing necessary application and it is open to the learned District Court to pass appropriate orders on merits. 9. Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 05th September, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B/o Tsy