CR 3707/1997 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA This writ petition is directed against the award dated 19.06.1996 passed by the learned Industrial Dispute Tribunal in reference case No. 11/1985 thereb y answering the particular dispute against the petitioner, i.e. The Workmen of M /s. Jokai India Ltd. For a ready reference the relevant issues which were referr ed to by the Govt. of Assam Labour and Employment Department vide notification d ated 25.06.1985 are quoted below: 1. (a) Whether the workers (Sangha’s) demand for placing the Head Clerks of M/s . Jokai India Ltd. in Grade-E clerical with effect from 01.04.1977 is justified ? (b) If so, to what relief such Head clerks are entitled ? 2.(a) Whether the worker’s (Sangha’s) demand for providing free medical treatmen t to unmarried daughters of any age of the staff members with retrospective effe ct from 01.04.1966 at the Company’s (management’s) expense is justified ? (b) If so, are such unmarried daughters irrespective of age, entitled to free me dical treatment with retrospective effect from 01.04.1966 at the management’s ex pense ? On receipt of the reference for adjudication, learned Tribunal issued no tice and on receipt of said notice they submitted their respective written state ment. In the proceeding before the Tribunal the petitioner examined two witnes ses as UW Nos. 1 and 2, while the Management examined three witnesses as MW Nos . 1, 2 and 3. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the materials available on record having answered the issue against the workmen and in favour of the Management, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition against the same. I have heard Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Sarma and Mr. A. Zahid, learned counsel representing the respondent Management. I have also gone through the entire material on record including the LCR. During the course of hearing Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse and based on no evidence, are liable to be interfered with. As regards the issue No. 1, she has submitted that the Head clerks within the same garden could not have been discriminated in the matter of grade and pay. Dealing with t he issue No. 2, she has referred to Anneuxre-2 circular dated 19.02.1952 to emph asize the entitlement of the medical facility irrespective of attaining the age of 18 years by the unmarried daughters of the tea garden workers. Countering the above argument, Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel repre senting the respondent Management, has submitted that depending upon the positio n occupied by the Head clerks they have been categorised as Grade-I and Grade-E and thus, there is discrimination. As regards the entitlement to medical facilit y by the unmarried daughters of the workmen referring to the provision of Planta tion Labour Act, 1951 (Section 2), he has submitted that since the Act itself pr ovides that unmarried daughters are entitled to medical facility upto the age of 18 years, the petitioner Union cannot claim such benefit beyond the prescribed age. Learned Tribunal in appreciation of the materials available on record in cluding the evidence adduced by the parties, has arrived at the conclusion that both the issues are liable to be answered in negative against the petitioner Uni on. Independent of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, I have perused the evidence on record. In both the issues, while the MWs are unequivocal about special status and grade attached to the Head clerks on being attached to the Office of the General Mana ger, Superintendent etc. with the categorisation of Grade-E, the Union witnesses in their dispositions virtually admitted the same. It is in the evidence that t he Head clerks on being posted to the Office of the General Manager and Superint endent are categorised as Grade-E Head clerk, while the other Head clerks attach ed to the other offices are categorised as Grade-I. This aspect of the matter ha s been admitted by both the Union witnesses, more particularly UW 2. The UW 2 in his cross examination categorically admitted the Management’s version that as p er the Wage Board recommendation the Head clerks attached to the Office of the General Manager and Superintendent are graded as Special Grades with categorisat ion of E and F with higher pay. It is the own deposition of UWs that other Head clerks of the Tea Garden are in Grade-I. In this connection, Exbts. 5 and 6 are relevant which are letter dated 24.09.1966 and Circular No. 110 dated 17.10.1996 depicting nomenclature grade of clerical staff are relevant. These two Exbts. D epict two categories of Head clerk, one in Grade-E and the other Grade-I. Coming to the second issue, there is no dispute as per the provision of the afor esaid Act that the medical facility are available to unmarried daughters only up to the age of 18 years. Although it was the case of the Union that as per the l ong practice prevalent in tea garden such unmarried daughters were entitled to m edical facilities irrespective of any age limit, on perusal of the evidence on r ecord nothing is found to support such claim. Rather, the deposition of the UW 2 is against the such entitlement. If the unmarried daughters of the workmen Unio n are entitled to medical facility upto a certain age limit, the Management cann ot be forced to provide medical facilities to such unmarried daughters. However, it is on record that such facilities are being provided to such daughters on hu manitarian ground. Needless to say that the provision of law cannot obstruct the humanitarian approach towards providing medical facilities to the deserving one s. There is some amount of dispute regarding applicability of Annexure-2 Circular d ated 19.02.1952 which provides a definition of dependent . As per the said defi nition, unmarried daughters without any restriction of age are dependent of the workmen. Learned Tribunal has held that the said definition is in terms of ratio n and not in terms of medical facility to unmarried daughters. The term family has been defined in the Plantation Labour Act which excludes unmarried daughter s above 18 years of age. Even assuming that Anenxure-2 Circular which was exhibi ted in the proceeding before the learned Tribunal is applicable to cover medical facility, in absence of anything to show that there has been long practice in t he tea garden to provide medical facility to unmarried daughters above 18 years of age, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal is wrong in its findings whi ch is also in accordance with the aforesaid provision of the Act. On perusal of the deposition made by the UW 2, what I find is that the said witness has rather admitted that there was no such practice in the tea garden to provide medical f acility to unmarried daughters above the age of 18 years of age. Thus, the claim made contrary to the provision of the Act , cannot be acceded to. However, I ha sten to add that same will be subject to the need of the hour. The respondent Ma nagement is not expected to take harsh and technical approach in this matter ign oring the humanitarian approach. The writ petition is answered in the above manner and stands disposed of.