IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP.No. 29545 of 2001(P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THE MANAGER, KUDUAKARNAM ESTATE, PEERMADE. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS, PEERMADE. 2. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. RAMAKRISHNAN [198], WORKER, KUDUAKARNAM ESTATE, PEERMADE, REP. BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ESTATE WORKER'S UNION, PEERMADE. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R4 SMT. NISHA BOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 29545/2001 Order on C.M.P.No.48045/2001 in OP.No. 29545/2001 Closed. 27.05.2011 Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF POCKET CHECK ROLLS and WAGE SLIP OF R4. EXT. P2 : COPY OF POCKET CHECK ROLLS AND WAGE SLIP OF R4. EXT. P3 : COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 24.2.97 BY R4 FILED BEFORE R1. EXT. P4 : COPY OF OBJECTIONS DTD. 29.3.97 BY PETITIONER FILED BEFORE R1. EXT. P5 : COPY OF ORDER DTD.27.5.98 BY R1. EXT. P6 : COPY OF APPEAL DTD. 13.7.98 BY THE PETITIONER FILED BEFORE R2. EXT. P7 : COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT DTD.6.8.98 BY R4. EXT. P8 : COPY OF REJOINDER 3.10.98 FILED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P9 : COPY OF ORDER DTD.20.9.97 BY R3. EXT.P10 : COPY OF ORDER DTD.26.2.2000 BY R2. EXT. P11 : COPY OF APPEAL DTD. 21.3.00 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R3. EXT. P12 : COPY OF ORDER DTD. 23.7.01 BY R3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- O.P. No.29545 OF 2001 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The Manager of the Kuduakarnam estate is the petitioner herein. The challenge is against the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 whereby it was held that the 4th respondent is eligible to get reimbursement of an amount of Rs.7,850/- incurred by him as medical expenses for undergoing scanning in connection with his medical treatment. 2. The dispute arose when a complaint was raised by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P3 for not allowing the reimbursement. The petitioner filed his objection as per Ext.P4. After considering the matter, Ext.P5 order was passed by the 1st respondent. Even though an appeal was filed by the petitioner, the same was rejected as per Ext.P10. The same was also subjected to further appeal before the 3rd respondent which also stands dismissed by Ext.P12. 3. It is mainly contended that the 4th respondent is not a O.P No.29545/2001 2 worker as he is drawing wages exceeding Rs.750/- per month. In Ext.P12 order, the 3rd respondent has considered all the contentions in detail. It was held that the claim is sustainable. In the orders impugned, Rules 32 to 37 of the Kerala Plantation Labours Rules have been relied on. In Ext.P10 it was held that the figure Rs.750/- cannot be considered as a criteria for defining a plantation worker at this juncture. It was held that the 4th respondent is a worker. The treatment was undergone as per the advice of the estate doctor in the Medical College. 4. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent pointed out that this Court in the judgment in Kerala Plantation Workers Federation vs. Union of India (2009 (3) KLT 433) has held that the stipulation of Rs.750/- as the maximum ceiling under S.2(k)(ii) is ultra vires to the Constitution in the present day context. 5. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the view taken in the impugned orders cannot be supported, evidently, the contentions cannot be accepted. All aspects have been properly considered. Rs.750/- O.P No.29545/2001 3 cannot be the basis for defining a worker in the light of the judgment in Kerala Plantation Workers Federation vs. Union of India (2009 (3) KLT 433). The scanning was undergone in the process of treatment, which will fall within the ambit of medical facilities, as rightly found in Ext.P12. All other bills have been paid by the Company. It is a case where the 4th respondent was referred for better treatment by the estate doctor. The 3rd respondent in Ext.P12 order found that the Act itself is a welfare legislation. I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed. Hence this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp