Hrishikesh Roy JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.D. Das, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel who represents few of the private respondents, all of whom are on the same footing, in both the cases. The Karimganj District Legal Services Authorities (respondent No. 1) is represented by the learned Advocate Ms. R.B. Bora.
2. The unemployment allowance under Section 7 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (in short ' the NREGA'), was ordered to be paid to the registered job card holders by the Karimganj District Legal Services Authority and this is challenged by the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Karimganj in both the cases. According to the petitioners, the disbursal of unemployment allowance is subject to the economic capacity of the State Government under Sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of NREGA. The petitioners also question the jurisdiction of the Lok-Adalat to issue direction, for disbursal of unemployment allowance for the private respondents.
3. The issues raised in both the cases are similar and common arguments are advanced, but the facts in this order are noted from the WP(C) No. 6472/2010, for the sake of convenience.
4. The private respondents are job card holders and are eligible for the guaranteed employment under the NREGA. On 28.11.2008 they applied for 100 mandays work before the Secretary of the Baraigram Gaon Panchayat and accordingly they were engaged for road construction work for 29 days w.e.f. 29.11.2008--1.1.2009 and were paid wages for those days. Although another road construction work was sanctioned in the area, the petitioners were not engaged and therefore they claimed unemployment allowance for the idle time (71 days), when they were not provided the guaranteed work under NREGA.
5. The respondents raised their grievance before the District Legal Services Authorities, Karimganj and accordingly the Pre-litigation Case No. 2/2010 and the Pre-litigation Case No. 1/2010 respectively were registered for disposal by the Lok-Adalat. On 28.7.2010, both cases were considered and direction was issued to secure funds for payment of unemployment allowance for the idle period out of the 100 guaranteed days work, for the year 2008-09. This was followed by the order dated 25.9.2010, whereby direction was issued to disburse the dues to the job card holders for the year 2008-09, within two months from the date of the order.
6. Before addressing the other issues, it may be necessary to consider whether the Lok-Adalats functioning under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1987 Act') could have ordered for payment of unemployment allowance to the job card holders. In this context, the respondent No. 1 in their counter affidavit filed on 10.6.2011 has enclosed the Scheme on Supporting the Implementation of the NREGA, through the State Legal Services Authority (in short 'the NALSA Scheme').
7. Under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2005 Act'), organization of Lok-Adalats at various level are envisaged and the award passed by the Lok-Adalats are deemed to be decrees of Civil Courts. Under Clause 7 of the NALSA Scheme, the Lok-Adalats are empowered to deal with disputes arising out of NREGA between the rural workers and the implementing agencies. Under Sub-Clause (3) of Clause 7, it is specifically provided that the Lok-Adalat shall have jurisdiction to address complaints arising out of implementation of the NREGA, as Pre-litigation Cases. Grievances relating to unemployment allowance are permitted to be raised before the Lok-Adalats under Clause 7(3)(6) of the NALSA Scheme. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the grievance relating to non-payment of unemployment allowance under the NREGA can certainly be decided as Pre-litigation disputes by the Lok-Adalats under the 1987 Act and th........