Vakalatnama/power was given. Counsel submits that when the matters were taken up by the National Lok Adalat, none of these counsels were present though, the presence of Mr. R. A. Katta was mentioned in the awards. The settlement was signed by one Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran, though, he was a panel counsel for the Corporation, but he was not authorized to sign the settlement on behalf of the Corporation. Counsel submits that the National Lok Adalat has passed the order, contrary to the policy formulated by the Corporation with regard to settlement of disputes arising between the Corporation and its employees. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned awards passed by the National Lok Adalat are legally not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arugments, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that a panel of Advocates has been prepared by the RSRTC wherein Mr. Om Prakash Sheoran is one of the standing counsel, who usually appears for the Corporation. Counsel submits that in the capacity of a standing panel counsel, he has signed the settlement on behalf of the Corporation. Hence, under these circumstances, the Corporation is bound by the settlement, arrived at between the parties and the awards passed by the National Lok Adalat is valid and the same are sustainable in the eye of law, and thus, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. Counsel submits that the awards were duly signed by the authorized panel counsel of the RSRTC and the RSRTC is legally bound to implement the same, hence, appropriate directions be issued to the RSRTC to implement the awards in their letter and spirit.
