IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24-10-2008 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.24285/2004 & W.P.M.P.No.29491/2004, W.V.M.P.No.37/2005 W.P.No.1086/2005 W.P.No.24285 of 2004 The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director, 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem. 2. C. Kaliappan ... Respondents Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in C.P.No.462 of 2000 dated 30.9.2003 and quash the same. W.P.No.1086 of 2005 C. Kaliappan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, rep.by its Managing Director, 12, Ramakrishna Road, Salem - 636 007. 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem. ... Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 30.9.2003 passed by the second respondent in C.P.No.462 of 2000, quash the same insofar as partly disallowing the petitioner's claim towards kidney operation and surgery and treatment expenditure for injury and consequently direct the first respondent to pay the petitioner's balance amount of Rs.33,228.75 together with interest at the rate of 12%, award cost. For Petitioner in W.P.24285/2004 & : Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi 1st Respondent in W.P.1086/2005 1st Respondent in W.P.24285/2004 & : Labour Court 2nd Respondent in W.P.1086/2005 2nd Respondent in W.P.24285/2004 & : Mr.D.Hariparanthaman Petitioner in W.P.1086/2005 COMMON ORDER By consent of both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The award of the Labour Court in C.P.No.462 of 2000 dated 30.9.2003 is challenged by both the management/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd., Salem, in W.P.No.24285 of 2004 and the workman C.Kaliappan in W.P.No.1086 of 2005. Hence both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience the parties in this order would be referred to as 'the Management' and 'Workman'. 4. The workman joined in the services of the management as Driver on 21.5.1973 and subsequently he was promoted as Driving Inspector. He retired from the said post on 30.9.1999 on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the workman, he was suffering from urinal problem in May, 1998 and was admitted in the Coimbatore Kidney Centre as in-patient on 25.5.1998. On diagnosis it was found that due to tumour in the urinary bladder, there was urinary problem. Petitioner underwent surgery in the said hospital and he was discharged on 29.5.1998. The petitioner also took medical treatment even after the discharge and he spent medical expenses for the surgery and treatment personally. According to the workman, while he was on special duty at Yercaud on 19.5.1999, he met with an accident and sustained injuries. He was admitted in Sri Manikandan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hospital, Salem, for treatment and was discharged on 5.6.1999 after getting treatment, including surgery on his right leg. 5. The workman's case is that as per the settlement which is in force, a Special Medical Assistance Scheme is provided with the contribution of both the workmen and Corporation for undergoing treatment and the workmen are entitled to financial assistance upto Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment. The management is also providing treatment to the workmen through the Corporation Medical Officers and when no facility is available for a particular treatment of disease, the Corporation refer the workmen to anyone of the approved hospitals and it would bear the medical and treatment expenses. 6. The workman herein submitted the medical bills for reimbursement. The management did not give any reply. Therefore, the workman filed C.P.No.462 of 2000 under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Labour Court, Salem, and claimed a sum of Rs.84,228.75 towards medical expenses for Kidney treatment, surgery and other medical expenses incurred due to the said accident and also leave salary. The said claim petition was considered by the Labour Court and a sum of Rs.30,000/- with 6% interest and cost of Rs.250/- was ordered to be paid to the workman by order dated 30.9.2003. 7. As against the award of Rs.30,000/- with 6% interest and cost, the management filed W.P.No.24285 of 2004 and as against the denial of the balance amount, the workman has filed W.P.No.1086 of 2005. 8. Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for the workman at the time of argument submitted that even though the claim was made for a total sum of Rs.84,828.75, the workman is not pressing the claim amount of Rs.21,000/- claimed towards wages for 89 days from 20.5.1999 to 16.8.1999. The said statement of the learned counsel for the workman is hereby recorded. 9. The claim petition filed by the workman was resisted by the management by stating that if any workman takes treatment in private hospitals as in-patient, the said workman is entitled to get reimbursement of the medical expenses for the equal amount, had the workman took treatment in the Government Hospital, fixed under the Government Orders. The claim of the workman for taking medical treatment in the Coimbatore Kidney Centre along with medical bills was forwarded to the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, who in turn certified that the workman is eligible for a sum of Rs.4,073.80 alone as per the Government Hospital expenditure and that the petitioner having claimed compensation under the Workmen's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Compensation Act, 1923, for the alleged accident, he is not entitled to claim the medical expenses again in the claim petition. 10. The Labour Court considered the said issue including the award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for a sum of Rs.44,892/- excluding the medical expenses. The Labour Court proceeded on the basis that the workman has not produced the original medical bills and only xerox copies were produced and therefore out of Rs.21,928/- a sum of Rs.3,000/- was ordered to be given and a sum of Rs.26,200/- was ordered for getting treatment due to the accident and towards the operation charges Rs.750/- was ordered, thus a total sum of Rs.30,000/- was ordered with 6% interest. 11. Mr.D.Hariparanthanam, learned counsel for the workman submitted that for denying the amount claimed towards medical bills, the reason stated by the Labour Court is non-production of original bills and records. As per Ex.R-1 i.e., dated 3.8.2000, all original bills were presented before the management, which in turn forwarded the same to the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai-6. The said letter contains enclosure of all the original bills and records. On the basis of the same, the learned counsel for the workman submitted that the reasoning given by the Labour Court for the denial of amount towards medical bills is unsustainable as it is a perverse finding. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the settlement, as on the date of accident and as on today, if a workman underwent operation or taken treatment, they are entitled to get medical reimbursement as per the Tamil Nadu Government Transport Corporation Employees Family Medical Fund Scheme and contributions from the management as well as the workmen were collected and in the said medical assistance scheme, nowhere it is stated that the amount will be calculated on the basis of the expenses, which may arise by taking treatment in the Government hospitals. Therefore, the contention raised by the management to reduce the amount at the rate of expenses of the Government Hospital is also not justified. 12. Mr.M.Ravi Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the management/Transport Corporation submitted that as there are Government Hospitals available, workman should have taken treatment in the Government Hospital and the workman having voluntarily took treatment from the private hospital, he is not entitled to claim the entire bill amount and therefore the denial of medical claim for the expenses incurred in the private hospitals is justified. The learned counsel also submitted that awarding Rs.26,200/- towards expenses for the medical treatment for the injuries sustained during the accident is also unsustainable. 13. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the workman as well as the management. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. The point in issue in these writ petitions is whether the workman is entitled to get a sum of Rs.21,928/- towards the expenses for taking treatment in a private hospital and Rs.41,930/- towards the expenses incurred for getting treatment to the injuries sustained due to the accident. 15. The treatment taken by the workman for renal failure as well as for the injuries sustained in the accident are not in dispute. The workman also admittedly contributed towards the Tamil Nadu Government Transport Corporation Employees Family Health Fund Scheme, which is created pursuant to the settlement made between the management and the employees. The said settlement nowhere states that if treatment is taken by the workman in a private hospital, he is entitled to claim only the amount payable, if he had taken treatment in the Government Hospital. In the absence of such a clause in the settlement, the management is not justified in contending that the workman is not entitled to get actual expenses incurred as the treatment was taken in the private hospital. This aspect was not accepted by the Labour Court and the same is a perverse finding, contrary to the settlement entered into by the management and the workman which is binding. 16. Similarly, the workman has produced the original medical bills to the management, which was also forwarded by the management to the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai-6. When the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai-6, gave his information on 3.8.2006, all original bills and records were also returned to the management and the same is evident from Ex.R-1. Thus, it is clear that the workman has produced all the original bills and records to prove the actual expenditure incurred by him and the originals are available with the management and the xerox copies of the same were filed before the Labour Court as Exs.M-1 to 3, M-6 to 8. The reason given by the Labour Court to deny the claim amount as per the medical bills solely on the ground of non-production of original bills is also unsustainable in view of the fact that the management has not raised any objection with regard to its genuineness and in fact the original bills are available with the management, which is reflected as stated supra in Ex.R-1. Hence awarding Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.21,928/- for the treatment taken at Coimbatore Kidney Centre is erroneous and it is also to be treated as perverse finding. The Labour Court also has not given any reason for awarding Rs.3,000/- and how the said amount was arrived at towards medical expenses. Hence, I am of the view that instead of Rs.3,000/- ordered by the Labour Court, the workman is entitled to get Rs.21,928/- for getting treatment for renal failure in Coimbatore Kidney Centre. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17. Insofar as the award of Rs.27,000/- towards surgery and medical bills for getting treatment assistance due to the accident in Sri Manikandan Hospital, Salem, is found to be just and proper in view of the fact that the workman also received the amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 18. The award of interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the order is also not according to the interest rate applicable during the year 2003. Hence the management is bound to pay 9% interest with cost as ordered by the Labour Court. 19. In fine, the award of the Labour Court made in C.P.No.462 of 2000 dated 30.9.2003 is enhanced to Rs.48,928/- with 9% interest and cost as ordered by the Labour Court from the date of award i.e., from 30.9.2003. The said amount is ordered to be paid by the management to the workman within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. W.P.No.24285 of 2004 is dismissed and W.P.No.1056 of 2005 is partly allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar Vr To 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem. 2.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation(Salem) Ltd., 12 Ramakrishna Road, Salem 636007. +1 cc to Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, Advocate, SR.No.59474 Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.Nos.24285/2004 & 1086/2005 SJ(CO) BK(3/11/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/