Modern Hotel Shakuntla Complex Pvt. Ltd. Th Romesh Chander Mahajan and Another Vs Duni Chand

By virtue of WP(C) No. 1375/2022, the petitioners have challenged award dated 13.08.2018/13.08.2018 passed by the Lok Adalat in File No. 54-P.W Act/2018 & 73-P.G Act/2018. By virtue of WP(C) No. 1374/2022, the petitioners have challenged award dated 13.08.2018/20.08.2018 passed by the Lok Adalat in File No. 53-P.W Act/2018 & 71-P.G Act/2018. By virtue of WP(C) No. 1376/2022, the petitioners have challenged award dated 13.08.2018/20.08.2018 passed by the Lok Adalat in File No. 52P.W Act/2018 & 72-P.G Act/2018. By virtue of CM(M) No. 41/2021, the petitioners have challenged order dated 21.09.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu in Execution Petition in respect of aforesaid three impugned awards.

¶14

2 CM(M) No. 41/2021

¶15

It appears that the respondents Dwarka Nath Sharma, Rattan Lal and Duni Chand had filed their claims under Payment of Wages Act and Payment of Gratuity Act before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act) Jammu separately. All the three claims were referred to the Lok Adalat and vide three separate awards dated 13.08.2018/20.08.2018, the Lok Adalat passed three different awards. Award for an amount of Rs. 4,15,500/- along with interest was made in favour of respondent Dwarka Nath, Award for an amount of Rs. 2,25,300/- was made in favour of respondent-Duni Chand and award for an amount of Rs. 3,59,200/- was made in favour of respondent-Rattan Lal. It appears that after passing of these awards, the above named three award holders approached learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu by way of an Execution Petition. Vide impugned order dated 21.09.2021, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued warrants of attachment in respect of movable property of the petitioners with a direction to SHO Police Station, Gandhi Nagar to attach the same.

¶16

The petitioners have challenged the impugned awards and the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on the ground that the constitution of the Lok Adalat that has passed the impugned awards is not in accordance with the law and as such, the impugned awards are nullity in the eyes of law.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

¶18

If we have a look at the impugned awards passed by the Lok Adalat, it is revealed that the same was presided over by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Controlling Authorities under Payment of Wages Act) Jammu. Section 18 of the J&K Legal Services Authorities Act deals with organization of Lok Adalats.

¶19

3 CM(M) No. 41/2021

¶20

As per sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act, every Lok Adalat organized for an area has to consist of serving or retired Judicial Officer and other persons of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or the Tehsil Legal Services Committee, organizing such Lok Adalat. Thus, the composition of the Lok Adalat in terms of Section 18 (2) of the J&K Legal Services Authorities Act has to be at least one serving or retired Judicial Officer and other persons as may be specified.

¶21

In the present case, the impugned awards have been passed by Lok Adalat which has been presided over by Assistant Labour Commissioner who is neither a serving nor a retired Judicial Officer. Thus, the composition of the Lok Adalat which has passed the impugned awards is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 18 of the J&K Legal Services Authorities Act which was applicable at the relevant time. The impugned awards passed by the Lok Adalat, therefore, lack the necessary legal authority because the same have been passed by coram non judice . The awards are, therefore, void having no legal sanctity. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu is also unsustainable in law.

¶22

For the foregoing reasons, all the four petitions are allowed and the impugned awards passed by Lok Adalat as also impugned order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu are quashed. The cases are remanded to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Controlling Authority under Payment of Wages Act and Payment of Gratuity Act) Jammu for fresh decision on merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Having regard to the fact that the claims of the private respondents are very old, the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Controlling Authority and Payment of Gratuity Act shall do well to conclude the proceedings and pass the awards within a period of six

¶23

4 CM(M) No. 41/2021

¶24

months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the said authority.

¶25

9. Disposed of.

¶26

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE

¶27

JAMMU 01.09.2025 Tarun/PS

¶28

Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? No

¶29

Mahavir Singh 2025.09.03 23:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Modern Hotel Shakuntla Complex Pvt. Ltd. Th Romesh Chander Mahajan and Another v. Duni Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Modern Hotel Shakuntla Complex Pvt. Ltd. Th Romesh Chander Mahajan and Another v. Duni Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shadi Lal and Others Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Secretary PWD and Revenue Deptt and Others

Sabir Hussain and Anr. Vs Manohar Lal Raina Relief Comm.Jammu

Sukh Dev Singh and Another Vs Additional Deputy Commissioner Reasi and Others

M/S Modern Hotel Shakuntla Complex Pvt. Ltd. Th Romesh Mahajan and Another Vs Dwarka Nath Sharma and Others

Amarjit Singh Kukreja and Others Vs Ut of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary, Revenue Department, Jammu and Others

Modern Hotel Shakuntla Complex Pvt. Ltd. Th Romesh Chander Mahajan and Another Vs Dwarka Nath