IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.12.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.17988 of 1999 Management of Konjumalai Estate Koramalai Group Valparai ... Petitioner -vs- 1.The Chief Inspector of Plantations Office of the Commissioner of Labour Teynampet, Chennai -18. 2.Gomathi ...Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in its proceedings T1/44538/97 and quash its order dated 03.09.1999. For Petitioner : Mr.Ravindran for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. For Respondents : Mrs.Sneha,G.A. for R1 Mr.A.R.Sakthivel for R2 O R D E R The petitioner is the management of a plantation covered by the Plantation Labour Act. They resisted the claim made by the second respondent made before the first respondent towards medical reimbursement for having undergone a surgery in a private hospital for the removal of her uterus. Since the claim of the second respondent was not considered by the plantation owners, she filed a complaint under Rule 27 of the Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Rules, 1955. The first respondent being the competent authority went into the issue. He found that the second respondent as she had excessive bleeding required immediate medical attention. Therefore, she had to get admitted into a private hospital for the removal of her uterus. Though the second respondent made a claim of medical reimbursement of Rs.11,000/-, but when she made a complaint earlier to the Chief Inspector of Plantations, she had only claimed a sum of Rs.8,292/-. In that view of the matter, the first respondent gave a direction that the petitioner is liable to refund a sum of Rs.8,292/- together with costs of Rs.500/-. The direction also further stated that if the amount is not paid within 15 days, forced recoveries would be made under Rule 28 of the said Rules. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The writ petition was admitted on 09.11.1999. This Court by an interim order directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.8,800/-. The second respondent was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,000/- out of the said deposit. 3. Today when the matter was taken up, this Court heard the arguments of Mr.Ravindran for M/s.T.S.Gopalan and Co. for the petitioner, Mrs.Sneha, the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, learned counsel for the second respondent and perused the records. 4. The petitioner Management contended that the first respondent did not make any proper enquiry with reference to the need and availability of the medical facilities provided by the petitioner Estate. It is only when medical facilities are lacking, the question of a workman approaching another hospital will arise. In the present case, the Estate had complete facilities for medical treatment. In fact for some period the second respondent herself was under their observation. When she was asked to return after some time, she failed to come back as advised by the Doctors. However, the first respondent rejected the said contention and held that the medical facilities provided by the petitioner were inadequate and therefore, the second respondent was justified in getting her treatment under a private hospital. 5. In the present case, the fact that the second respondent had an uterus problem and it had to be removed since there was excessive bleeding was not denied. The fact that such a surgery was performed in a private hospital and that she had incurred expenditure was also not denied. The only apprehension of the petitioner Management is that though they had full medical facilities, it was wrong on the part of the first respondent to have rendered a finding that they were having inadequate medical facilities. If this fact is allowed to be on record, similar claims will be forthcoming from other workmen. 6. However, taking into account the overall circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the order of the first respondent in so far as he had directed the petitioner to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the second respondent is concerned, it need not be disturbed. In the present case, there was an exigency for the workman to have got herself admitted to a private hospital, in view of the nature of bleeding and the urgent surgery to be performed. 7. In the light of the same, the petitioner having already deposited the entire amount and the second respondent having withdrawn Rs.5,000/- out of the same, she is entitled to withdraw the balance amount. It is made clear that the confirmation of the order of the first respondent by this Court will not enable any other person to cite this as a precedent. If any such claims are made in future, they will stand on their own facts and not to be influenced by this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed with the above observations . No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar svki To The Chief Inspector of Plantations Office of the Commissioner of Labour Teynampet, Chennai -18. +1cc to M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co. Sr 72096 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 72595 KGK (CO) km/29.1. W.P.No.17988 of 1999 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/