1. The petitioner challenges an award of the respondent No. 1, a Lok Adalath, dated 6-4-1999 by way of this writ petition.
2. The petitioner is the Port Trust of Visakhapatnam with whom one Mr. B. Gangulu was an employee and who retired as orehandling labour with token No.759 voluntarily on medical grounds. The employee nominated his wife Appala Narsamma in the year, 1988 as the nominee for the purpose of entitling the retirement benefits. Later, in the year, 1994 he revised the nomination in favour of the second respondent herein, the second wife, namely B. Chinna Talli. Thus, he had to wives; Appala Narsamma and Chinna Talli. Through Appala Narsamma he had one son and two daughters, Sri Ramulu, Demudamma and Kankamma, whereas through the second wife i.e., respondent No.2 herein he had two daughters Jyothi Lakshmi and Nagamma aged 19 and 16 years respectively. The first wife Appala Narsamma divorced B. Gangulu about 12 years prior to the impugned proceedings and married one Polisetti Ramulu and living with him and whereas her three children born through Gangulu were already married and settled. However the two daughters of second wife Chinna Talli are still young and yet to be married.
3. On the application of the respondent No.2 claiming to be the second wife in the Lok Adalath conducted by the respondent No.1 herein which is a District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam, after notice to the petitioner and the first wife Appala Narsamma, it was ordered that the daughter of respondent No.2 Jyothi Lakshmi be provided with compassionate appointment and the second respondent herein be entitled to the benefits that accrued on such retirement. It is seen from the order that after notice, Appala Narsamma appeared therein and she expressed 'no objection' for grant of either of the benefits to the second respondent herein and her daughter. The Lok Adalath had taken into consideration the fact that Appala Narsamma, the first wife, having divorced about 12 years back, got married to one Polisetti Ramulu of Kancharapal village and is living separately and all her children are married and settled whereas the children of the second respondent herein i.e., the second wife are yet to be married and settled. Therefore, ultimately the award was passed in favour of the second respondent and her daughter Jyothi Lakshmi regarding the benefits and compassionate appointment.
4. Challenging the said award, Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended mainly that respondent No.1 Lok Adalath has no powers to entertain any such applications directly without the process through the Court and further that the second respondent being a second wife, her marriage is illegal and no relief be granted to her and her children. Admittedly Appala Narsamma was the first wife who could have been entitled to such benefits. Further there is no valid divorce in between B. Gangulu and Appala Narsamma nor any valid marriage between B. Gangulu and Chinna Thalli. The parties themselves cannot enter into such any agreement or compromise so as to make it binding on the petitioner.
5. Sri P. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent sought to repel these contentions on the ground that in view of the provision of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act'), the award passed by the respondent No.1 is final and further it was passed only after notice to the petitioner and there was no objection of any kind whatsoever in nature and it is only with their consent the award was passed. Further in view of the amended Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, eventhough a second marriage is not valid, the children have to be treated as legitimate and therefore they have been rightly given due benefit by taking into consideration the divorce of the first wife and the children of her first wife were already settled. Thus, there is no illegality in the order passed by the first respondent.
6. From these and other detailed submissions made on either side, by going through the record and the provisions of the said Act, the important question which arises in this writ petition is as to the effect of an award passed by the District Legal services Authority under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and whether the same can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Before adverting to the legal question, admittedly B. Gangulu was the employee of the petitioner and who retired as a labour. He had two wives namely, Appala Narsamma and Chinna Thalli. Through first wife he had three children and through the other wife two children. Initially he nominated the first wife as the nominee and subsequently it was changed in favour of the second respondent herein. Claiming the terminal benefits and also the compassionate appointment, the respondent No.2 filed the application during Lok Adalath conducted by the first respondent herein, whereupon notice was given to the petitioner and the first wife Appala Narsamma. Both appeared before the respondent No.1 and made their submissions. By taking into consideration the fact that the first wife had already divorced and having married one Polisetti Ramulu, is living separately and further all her three children are settled and she herself having expressed 'no objection' before the first respondent No.1, an award was passed in favour of the second respondent for the terminal benefits and for providing compassionate appointment in favour of one of her daughter namely Jyothi Lakshmi. There is no complaint as to want of notice to the petitioner during the Lok Adalat proceedings by the respondent No.1. There is nothing on record to show that any objection was raised by the petitioner during the said proceedings. Further even other wise, in a dispute in between two wives and their children, the petitioner himself cannot take any side and bound to honour the orders obtained from a competent Court as to the entitlement to the terminal benefits or even the compassionate appointment. In this case, the first wife Appal Narsamma specifically expressed that she has 'no objection' for giving benefits to respondent No.2 and her daughter and the same was accepted and thereupon the award came to be passed. On the face of such consent from her and also in view of the amended Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, the children of a second wife cannot be treated as illegitimate and thus, there is no illegality in granting the terminal benefits and providing compassionate appointment.
8. The impugned award and proceedings were in pursuance of the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act 39 of 1987, which had come into force on 9-11-1995. This Legislation is only in furtherance of the object and the purpose mentioned in Article 39-A of the Constitution of India which contemplates the State to secure operation of legal system and promoting justice on the basis of equal opportunity, and in particular, providing free legal aid, by suitable Legislation and schemes to ensure that opportunities for securing justice is not denied to any citizen. The preamble of the Act reiterates that it is with a view to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker section 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 secure operation of the legal system of equal opportunity that the Act has been brought. Under the provision of the said Act various authorities at different levels have been constituted; namely, National Legal Services Authority and the Central Authority and Supreme Court Services Committee and Central Authority and State Legal Services Authority at the State level and also District Legal Services Authority at the district level. These authorities in turn are empowered to constitute certain committees to give effect to these objects. Accordingly the respondent No.1 herein acting as a District Legal Services Authority, constituted under Section 9 of the said Act, conducted a Lok Adaklat during which the respondent No.2 had filed the present application which ultimately resulted into an award after due notice to all concerned including the petitioner and on consideration of the claims on merits.
9. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 reads as follows :
"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 compundable under any law."
10. Under this provision, the Lok Adalat is vested with jurisdiction in respect of any case pending before a Court or any matter which is not before the Court. The expressions used and the purposes behind are very clear and distinct. This is in consonance with the objects which are intended to be achieved and furthering the aims under Article 39-A of the Constitution of India. Thus, it has all the powers not only to take up the dispute pending before the Court but also in pursuance of the applications filed before it during the proceedings. In fact the 'Legal Services' as defined Under Section 2(c) of the said Act includes rendering of any service in the conduct of any case or other legal proceeding before any Court or other authority or Tribunal and the giving of advice on any legal matter, the object being to provide free legal aid service which is also the one enshrined under Article 39-A. Therefore, the assistance as contemplated is at all levels, not restricted to only those on approaching the Court of law or authority or Tribunal. Further it is not only with a view to settle pending cases but to settle any impending matters and to provide such assistance, this Legislation has stepped in. As per Section 22 of the Act, the procedure vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit in respect of the matters provided thereunder have been made fully applicable, apart from enabling to frame its own procedure. Under Section 21 of the said Act, an award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court and the same shall be final and binding on all the parties and no appeal shall lie against the said award. Therefore, the award is enforceable as a decree and it is final. In alt fours, the endeavour is only to see that the disputes are narrowed down and make the final settlement so that the parties are not again driven to further litigation or any dispute. Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest on merits just as a regular suit by a Court on a regular trial, however, it is as equal and on par with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding effect and conclusive. Just as the decree passed on compromise it cannot be challenged in a regular appeal, the award of the Lok Adalat being akin to the same, it cannot be challenged by any regular remedies available under law including invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the award on any ground. Judicial review cannot be invoked in such awards especially on the grounds as raised in this writ petition.
11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.