G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) WHETHER the Lok Adalats organised under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, the 1987 Act) have the jurisdiction to decide cases otherwise than by way of settlement or compromise is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed by Shri Sham Lal Sharma for quashing order dated 14.1.2000 passed by the permanent Lok Adalat (1) functioning in the High Court.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that after his retirement from service on 31.5.1988 as Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haryana, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 5296 of 1995 for directing the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of service and retiral benefits. The same was disposed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.12.1995 with a direction for payment of interest in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Government. After sometime, the petitioner filed a contempt petition with the complaint that the direction given by the Court had not been complied with. The same was registered as C.O.C.P. No. 332 of 1997. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents paid a sum of Rs. 5,813/ - to the petitioner towards interest on the delayed payment of gratuity. After taking note of this, the learned Single Judge disposed of the contempt petition on 26.5.1997 with liberty to the petitioner to seek further remedy for claiming interest on other item. Thereafter, he filed C.W.P. No. 2753 of 1999 claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of the dues. The same was referred to Lok Adalat (1) of the High Court. The parties did not agree to settle the matter before Lok Adalat by way of compromise. Notwithstanding this, Lok Adalat (1) disposed of the writ petition on 14.1.2000 with the direction to the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 12%. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Lok Adalat reads as under: - "We feel that it is a fit case where the following directions should be issued and this will meet the ends of justice: (i) the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the delayed payment of the amount of arrears of salary of Rs. 86757/ - so the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on that account. (ii) the respondents shall pay interest @ 12% P.A. on the amount of 32096/ - in respect of encashment of unavailed of earned leave with effect from 1.12.1988 to 12.10.1991 when the payment was actually made. Similarly, the respondents shall pay interest at the same rate on the amount of gratuity Rs. 56100/ - from 1.12.1988 till the date of actual payment in the month of April, 1992 within a period of three months from today. Any interest already paid on the amount of gratuity shall be deducted out of the interest calculated @ 12% P.A. as mentioned above before making the payment. It is made clear that in a number of cases which we have settled till today, we are not allowing any interest on retiral benefits for a period of six months from the date of retirement because we consider that the period of six months is quite reasonable to enable the government to work out sanction and make payment of the retiral benefits and we are allowing 12% interest if there is delay beyond six months for the period beyond it, we are not allowing any interest on the amount of arrears of salary as it is not covered by any settled precedent and we have followed the same principle here also." The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Lok Adalat on the ground that it did not have the jurisdiction to decide the matter ignoring the fact that the parities had not entered into a settlement or compromised the matter on the petitioner's claim for award of interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(3.) SHRI Harsh Aggarwal referred to the averments made in the writ petition to show that the petitioner had claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the dues of services as well as retiral benefits. He submitted that his client had never agreed to settle the matter by accepting the payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of delayed payment of some of the dues and, therefore, the Lok Adalat did not have the jurisdiction to dispose of the case by directing payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum and that too only on some of the amounts which were not paid to on due dates. He referred to the provisions of Sections 19(5) and 20(3), (4), (5) and (6) and argued that Lok Adalat organised by the High Court Legal Services committee did not have the jurisdiction to dispose of the case on merits because the limited power vested in it is to determine and decide the matters in terms of the compromise or settlement and his client had not agreed to accept interest at the rate of 12% per annum and that too on the limited amount for a period shorter than the one claimed by him. He further argued that the Lok Adalat cannot assume the role of regular Courts and decide the cases on merits because that would be subversive of the basic structure of the Constitution.;