( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges an award of the Respondent No. 1,, a Lok Adalat, 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 taken 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 to 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 two 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 laxmi 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 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 naisamma appeared therein and she expressed no objection for grant of either of the benefits to the second respondenl herein and her daughter. The Lok Adalal 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 Adalat 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 provisions 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, even though 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 the first wife were already settled. Thus, there is no illegality in the order