Smt Pooja Maruthi Vs the Management of

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S ALCATEL LUCENT TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MANYATA EMBASSY BUSINESS PARK SILVER OAK, A WING OUTER RING ROAD,NAGAWARA BANGALORE-560 045. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:7955 WP No. 4984 of 2016

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

PNB METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS METLIFE INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ORCHID CENTRE, 5^TH FLOOR DLF GOLF COURSE ROAD, SECTOR -53, GURGOAN-122 002 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

¶22

SUBSTITUTED AS ‘CARE HEALTH INSURANCE’ (VIDE COURT ORDER DT. 30.8.2025)

¶23

D-3, P3B, DISTRICT CENTRE SAKET, NEW DELHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶24

ALSO AVAILABLE FOR SERVICE AT RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., GPS GLOBAL PLOT NO.A3, A4, A5, SECTOR-125, NOIDA, U.P.201 301. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶25

V MARUTHI S/O R.J. VISHWANATHA RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.L AND T SOUTH CITY C3-604 ARAKERE MICO LAYOUT BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560 076.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. J PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.K. SUBHA ANANTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.GOPALAKRISHNA GOWDA. I., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:7955 WP No. 4984 of 2016

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ECA NO.17/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE, ISSUE NOTICES TO THE RESPONDENTS AND HEAR THE PARTIES ON MERITS, QUASH THE ORDER DTD.25.3.2015, DISPOSING OF THE PETITION AS SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH FOR A SUM OF RS.7,58,360/- RECORDED IN ECA NO.17/2015 VIDE ANNEX-E ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, BANGALORE AND ISSUE SUITABLE DIRECTIONS TO RESTORE THE PETITION TO FILE FOR BEING DISPOSED OF ON MERITS AND ETC.,

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Petitioner No.1 being the wife and petitioner No.2 being the daughter of one Sudhir are before this Court seeking the following reliefs :

¶36

(a) Call for the entire records pertaining to ECA No.17/2015 on the file of the learned V Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, issue notices to the respondents and hear the parties on merits,

¶37

(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or orders of like nature quashing the order dated 25.03.2015, disposing of the petition as settled in Lok Adalath for a sum of

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:7955 WP No. 4984 of 2016

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Rs.7,58,360/- recorded in ECA No.17/2015 vide Annex-E on the file of the V Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore and issue suitable directions to restore the petition to file for being disposed of on merits,

¶42

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or orders of like nature directing the respondents to make available all the insurance policy details and all other particulars pertaining to V.Sudhir, the husband of the 1^st petitioner.

¶43

(d) Pass such other relief or reliefs that this Honourable Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances involved in the case to meet the ends of justice.”

¶44

The petitioners, principally allege that the order impugned passed by the Lok Adalat is one without following the

¶45

due process of law. Secondly, the joint memo dated 25.03.2015 produced at Annexure-F has not been signed by the petitioners and the same has been filed without their knowledge and consent. Thirdly, the amount determined is contrary to the facts which had transpired between the petitioners and the employer of Late Sudhir, namely M/s Alcatel Lucent Technology India Private Limited.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, namely Sudhir V was an employee of respondent No.1company working as a software engineer, drawing monthly

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7955 WP No. 4984 of 2016

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

salary of Rs.1,66,520/- per month, who passed away in a road

¶50

accident. That there was a group medical insurance and personal accident insurance scheme that had been floated by the respondent No.1-company in terms of which considering the earnings of Sudhir, the petitioners would have been entitled for substantial sum as compensation, regardless of earning which would have been more than what is awarded in the Lok Adalat. She submits that upon the petition filed by the petitioners in ECA No. 17/2015 under the provisions of Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat wherein without the knowledge, concurrence and consent of the petitioners, at the instance of

¶51

counsel for the parties, the matter has been settled at Rs.7,58,360/- which is against the provisions of law. She further submits that the proceedings of Lok Adalat initiated by the ESI Court is contrary to settled provisions of law, in that if the matter has to be referred to the Lok Adalat, a separate proceeding has to be conducted and using the very same ESI Court proceeding to dispose of the matter as Lok Adalat, in the very same proceedings is contrary to the established principles

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:7955 WP No. 4984 of 2016

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

of law. Thus, on these three counts, she seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶56

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would contend that the petitioners have alternate remedy of seeking enhancement of compensation if they are dissatisfied with the amount determined. He also raises the question that the deceased Sudhir, the husband and father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively, does not satisfy the definition of employee as he was working as a software engineer which would take the claim outside the purview of the Act. However,

¶57

he does not dispute the requirement of a proceedings to be complied with when the matter is referred to Lok Adalat. He fairly, however, submits that if the matter is remanded, the same can be disposed of in accordance with law.

¶58

Submission is taken on record.

¶59

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.

¶60

Akkubai vs Venkatrao and Others¹ has held as under :

¶61

“11. I really wonder, whether the learned Judge who has entertained this matter was aware of the elementary

¶62

1 ILR 2014 KAR 2051

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:7955 WP No. 4984 of 2016

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

aspects of judicial functioning and the Lok Adalath. A common ordersheet cannot be maintained by the Court as well as the Lok Adalath. A Court cannot be converted into a Lok Adalath. In the order-sheet maintained by the Court, a portion of the proceedings is referable to the Court proceedings and another portion refers to the proceedings of the Lok Adalath. The Conciliator has no place inside the Court. The very object of accepting this Lok Adalath as an alternative mode of resolution of dispute is that, all matters do not need adjudication. The matter which could be resolved by persuasion, negotiation and understanding should be taken out of adjudication process and should be resolved by means of Lok Adalath satisfactorily, so that the cases are disposed of expeditiously and the Courts will be saving the time of adjudicatory process, and they can utilize that time which is saved, in adjudicating the cases. If on the day the plaint is presented, the parties are also present before the Court, they are ready with the compromise petition and when they are filing an application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, when they are admitting the terms of the compromise and execution of the terms and condition, then the Court before which it is presented, is the competent Court to record the compromise and dispose of the suit in terms of the compromise. The question of referring the said dispute to the Lok Adalath would not arise. If it is referred, it is a farce. If this is accepted and encouraged, both the judicial system and this alternative dispute resolution mechanism gets a bad name and would be subjected to redicule in the eyes of public. All persons who are indulging in this process would be doing great injustice and dis-service to the judicial system. They are not conscious of their action and its repercussions and the image of the Judiciary, which would create in the mind of the public. That is not the object with which neither Legal Services Authority Act of 1987 is passed by the Parliament providing for the institution of Lok Adalath nor Section 89 was introduced by the Parliament amending CPC. The essence of these provisions is neither understood by the learned Judge nor by the learned Counsels who are appearing for the parties.”

¶67

The said order has been consistently followed by this Court and

¶68

one such case is W.P.No.103766/2018, DD 31.03.2022.

¶69

In the instant case, the order sheet produced at Annexure-E indicates that the ESI Court on 25.03.2015 has

¶70

8 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:7955 WP No. 4984 of 2016

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

noted in the daily order sheet maintained in the case ECA

¶74

No.17/2015 as under:

¶75

“Both sides present, Sri S.B. files power. Shri P.M files power for respondent No.1 Memo filed by petitioner No.1. Petitioner and counsel agrees. Matter settled in Lok Adalat. Case disposed.”

¶76

A hand written joint memo - Annexure-F (illegible)

¶77

purportedly reads as under :

¶78

“Joint Memo

¶79

The above case has been settled as compromise, the respondent has deposit the D.D. The matter came be disposed as mutual settled.

¶80

Bangalore Sd/25.3.15 Advocate for appellant Sd/Advocate for respondent

¶81

The said memo apparently signed by advocate for the

¶82

appellant and advocate for the respondent, there appears to be no signature of the petitioners.

¶83

The very same order sheet indicates the advocate

¶84

conciliator and the judicial conciliator have purportedly accepted the memo of settlement and have passed the following order :

¶85

9 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:7955 WP No. 4984 of 2016

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

LOK-ADALATH

¶89

Case taken up in Lok-Adalath. Both parties and counsels present, by the intervention of parties have compromised the matter, Respondent present and agreed for the compromised and filed memo for settling the matter to a tune of Rs.7,58,360/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs fifty eight thousand three hundred and sixty only).

¶90

Perused the memo, as settled. It is proceeded to pass the following:-

¶91

ORDER

¶92

Petition is disposed of as settled in Lok-Adalath for a sum of Rs.7,58,360/-, Respondent has deposited the compromised amount, on proper identification, as the matter is settled in Lok-Adalath.

¶93

Office to draw award accordingly,

¶94

The Respondent No.1 has deposited the amount in office, on realizing the amount office to pup up for apportionment.

¶95

Sd/- Sd/- Advocate Conciliator Judicial Conciliator

¶96

In light of the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat and remit the matter to the ESI Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Petition is accordingly allowed. Order dated 25.03.2015 disposing of the petition as settled in Lok Adalat in ECA No. 17/2015 on the file of the V Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, is quashed.

¶97

10 -

¶98

NC: 2026:KHC:7955 WP No. 4984 of 2016

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

Since the parties are represented by the counsel, they shall appear before the Court of V Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, on 07.03.2026, without any further notice.

¶101

All contentions are kept open to be urged by the parties.

¶102

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶103

CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Smt Pooja Maruthi v. the Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pooja Maruthi v. the Management of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jyothi Basavaraj Mundalamane Vs Sri. Kashinath

Sri.P.Madhav Rao Vs the Karnataka Stae Bar Council

Mr.Prakash Sapaliga Vs M/S Indian Over Seas Bank

Sri Balaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Canadian International School Private Limited Vs Directorate of Enforcement

M/S Jalsa Vs the Authorised Officer