ALACRITY FOUNDATIONS PVT LTD Vs. S RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are accused in C.C.Nos.8297 to 8305 of 2004 on the file of learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and facing trial for offences under Sections 14(1A) and 14A(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, filed petitions under Section 20(1)(i)(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), to refer the cases to Lok Adalat.

(2.) IN the petitions filed before the Court below, it is stated that the petitioners are ready and willing to settle the dispute amicably though the amount referred in the complaint is disputed, they are willing to settle the same after negotiation with the complainant and further negotiation process is to be initiated very shortly with the head of the department of complainant. It is further stated that they have settled approximately a sum of Rs.16 lakhs out of the amount claimed by the complainant and the remaining dues will be settled in a period of time and for that purpose, the accused are going to have a meeting with the head of the department of the complainant.

(3.) MR. Harikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, strenuously contended that the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that under the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, any dispute can be referred at any stage before the Lok Adalat and it does not preclude the dispute being referred to Lok Adalat after the trial has commenced in any proceedings. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Magistrate erred in prejudging the issue by observing that there is no possibility of settlement through negotiation and the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that an innovative mechanism for alternate dispute resolution has proved effective for resolving disputes in a spirit of conciliation outside the Courts and as such, the learned Magistrate ought to have referred the case to Lok Adalat by invoking the provision under Section 20 of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that only because of the slump in business and severe financial crisis, the revision petitioners were not in a position to pay the statutory dues in time. The learned counsel further submitted that several litigations were pending in various forums and the petitioners had to settle one by one and if sufficient time is given to the petitioners, they will be in a position to settle all the statutory dues, for the non-payment of which, the petitioners have been prosecuted.