Back
2008 (3) GCD 1823 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod
Employees State Insurance Corporation
Versus
Pioma Industries
Special Civil Application No. 30323 of 2007—Decided on 06/05/2008
Held :
Insurance Inspector was deputed by the Corporation as per the averments made in Para 3 and who was to assist the lawyer engaged by the Corporation. Settlement is in hand writing. It is signed by the parties including the Insurance Inspector and order was also passed by the Lok Adalat Officer in terms of the settlement in presence of the parties. This settlement was drafted on 26.09.2006. The same was signed by Advocate of Corporation dated 29.09.2006 on 02.10.2006 and order was passed by Lok Adalat on 04.10.2006. The parties have signed settlement including Advocates. [Para 4]
The ESI Corporation came to know recently in the month of June, 2007 whereas the record suggests something else against the Corporation. Why the Corporation is making such efforts with the help of the lawyer? Whether the Lawyer wants to become smart or whether the Corporation wants to become smart with the Court? Knowing fully well that the respondent has addressed a letter dated 25.11.2006 received by the Corporation on 28.11.2006 and xerox copy of letter as well as acknowledgment thereof are on record and yet, petitioner-Corporation is making such averments in Para 4(1) of the petition. No rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent has been filed by the petitioner-Corporation in this regard denying receipt of letter dated 25.11.2006 on 28.11.2006 and, therefore, according to my opinion, averments made in Para 4(1) are contrary to the record and, therefore, same cannot be believed by this Court. [Para 5]
No affidavit in rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent. Therefore, considering the averments made by the respondent in his affidavit in reply and also considering the contents of the letter dated 25.09.2006 Page 47, according to my opinion, such type of petition challenging orders made by the Lok Adalat on the basis of the consent terms arrived at between the parties on the ground that the officer who has signed the consent terms is not authorised to sign such settlement as he is not authorised officer, cannot be entertained by this Court. If such challenges are encouraged, then, Lok Adalats would become meaningless and the orders passed by the Lok Adalats would be losing their efficacy and the purpose of Lok Adalats would also stand defeated and frustrated and, therefore, such petition cannot be entertained by this Court. [Para 9]
This Court is fully satisfied with the order passed by the Lok Adalat on the basis of the consent terms arrived at between the parties, duly signed by the Insurance Inspector and lawyer engaged by the petitioner Corporation and the respondent. Settlement has been recorded by the Lok Adalat-Member, Industrial Court working as ESI Court who is of the level of District Judge. The day on which settlement was recorded, somebody must be in the Corporation to ask the Insurance Inspector as to what has happened in the Lok Adalat when he was deputed by the Corporation. It was within the knowledge of the Corporation that the matter has been placed before the Lok Adalat for settlement, if possible. At that time, Corporation could have issued instructions to the Insurance Inspector and/or the lawyer engaged by it to raise objection against putting of the matter before the Lok Adalat but no objection was raised when the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat. Thereafter, whether the higher officer of the Corporation has asked the Advocate engaged by the Corporation and/or the Insurance Inspector as to what has happened in the Lok Adalat, what is the status of the matter but there is no averment on record to that effect made in the petition. ESI Corporation has remained silent as if nothing has happened or whatever happened is legal and thereafter, all of a sudden, just to save the skin and shirk the responsibility, the higher officer of the Corporation has with the help of the lawyer, approached this Court as if this Court can consider and examine the orders passed by the Lok Adalat based on consent terms. If such attempts of the petitioner Corporation are entertained and/or encouraged, then, there would be no sanctity of the orders passed by the Lok Adalat on the basis of the consent terms arrived at between the parties and it would inspire the litigants in future to settle the matter at the first instance before the Lok Adalat and thereafter to challenge the same before the High Court under the one or the other reason. [Para 15]
No correspondence between the Corporation and the lawyer engaged by the Corporation has been placed on record for consideration of this Court. I am openly discussing the things tried to be suppressed by the petitioner while filing this petition before this Court because it is not a petition with bona fide purpose as petitioner has not come with clean hands, heart and mind. It is a petition with clear mala fide purpose just to shirk the responsibility of the higher authority of the Corporation by filing this petition before this Court. If such type of petition is entertained by this Court, whole purpose of Lok Adalat shall stand frustrated and/or defeated and the orders passed by the Lok Adalat would be losing their sanctity and efficacy. This Court cannot become a party to such things. [Para 15]
Petition Dismissed
H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sachin D. Vasavada for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent.
2. Rule. Service is Rule is waived by learned Advocate Mr. D.R. Dave for the respondent. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.
3. It is a case of lapses committed by the officer of the petitioner ESI Corporation and, on that basis, petitioner is challenging order passed by the Lok Adalat dated 03.10.2006 in ESI Application No. 23 of 2002. Arguments advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. Vasavada on merits before this Court is totally irrelevant and yet, this Court has permitted him to argue on merits of the matter. Against the order passed by the Lok Adalat, appeal is not available. That is the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Limited scope to challenge the order passed in Lok Adalat. Writ petition before the High Court is limited remedy. Contention raised by the ESI Corporation is that the Insurance Inspector is not authorised to settle the matter with the respondent. How the respondent will be aware about this fact that the Insurance Inspector is not authorised. The averments made in this regard in Para 3 being material, relevant averment made in Para 3 of the petition is reproduced as under:
“It is further submitted that the petitioner also engaged the lawyer and deputed its Insurance Inspector to assist the lawyer as well as the ESI Court in the said proceedings.”
4. Aforesaid averment made by the petitioner in Para 3 of the petition makes it clear that the Insurance Inspector was authorised officer deputed by the Corporation in the proceedings pending before the ESI Court in ESI Application No. 23 of 2002. Settlement arrived at between the parties in Lok Adalat where Advocate Mr. I.R. Amarnani was engaged by the ESI Corporation. Whether the Advocate has signed the settlement or not, no details have been given by the ESI Corporation. Why Corporation remained silent about their Advocate, whether he has given any advise to the Insurance Inspector that such kind of settlement is permissible under the ESI Act or not? No details have been given in that regard by the petitioner before this Court. A Corporate Body which is a State Authority has acted in a manner with the private person that they are supreme and superior because they are authority and they are entitled to challenge any kind of binding orders in this High Court. ESI Corporation being the State Authority is supposed to know what is the rule of law. ESI Corporation is supposed to understand that they are also an authority working under the rule of law and law is binding to it. Knowing fully well that this Court has no jurisdiction to examine merits, whole efforts were made by the lawyer before this Court to highlight merits of the matter before this Court only with a view to cause prejudice to the main subject matter where challenge is against the order passed in Lok Adalat. Insurance Inspector was deputed by the Corporation as per the averments made in Para 3 and who was to assist the lawyer engaged by the Corporation. Settlement is in hand writing. It is signed by the parties including the Insurance Inspector and order was also passed by the Lok Adalat Officer in terms of the settlement in presence of the parties. This settlement was drafted on 26.09.2006. The same was signed by Advocate of Corporation dated 29.09.2006 on 02.10.2006 and order was passed by Lok Adalat on 04.10.2006. The parties have signed settlement including Advocates. It was informed by the respondent to the ESI Corporation by letter dated 25.11.2006 by RPAD addressed to the Regional Director, ESI Corporation, ESIC Bhawan, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad as per Page 47 but these facts have been suppressed by the Corporation while making specific averments in the memo of petition that the petitioner-Corporation is not aware about this settlement order passed by the Lok Adalat and, therefore, imme
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
