IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 34652 of 1998 Between: The Telangana Trade Union Council, rep. by its President R. Kashiramulu, S/o. Kondaiah, R/o. Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Labour, Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC X Road, Hyderabad-A.P. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus- (i) declaring the following two- Conditions, namely- (a) Issuance of Disability Certificate by a Govt. Doctor & (b) The service of Notice on the employer through the applicant, as prescribed in the Impugned Memo No. G1/28092/97 dt. 24.4.1998, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory provisions of Workman compensation Act and rules; (ii) consequently, direct the respondent to follow tHe Statutory provisions of the W.C. Act and rules, made thereunder scrupulously without any deviation; (iii) pass any such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Government Pleader for Labour The Court made the following O R D E R: The petitioner, a Trade Union, instituted this writ petition questioning the correctness of conditions incorporated in the memo dated 24th April 1998 issued by the Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of guiding the competent authorities under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’), while determining the claims brought before them under the said Act. The writ petitioner - Trade Union takes exception to the condition, namely; that the Disability Certificate issued by a Government doctor in case of non-fatal accidents along with a photo of the applicant showing the disability duly authenticated by the doctor on the reverse side of the photograph should be insisted upon. The case of the petitioner is that the Act has recognized any registered medical practitioner as a ‘qualified medical practitioner’ in terms of the definition of the said expression found in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the insistence of the certification of the disability by a Government doctor runs contra to the scheme of the Act, which has recognized a qualified medical practitioner as competent to certify the disability concerned. The counter-affidavit filed by the Additional Commissioner of Labour has pointed out that several instances have come to the notice of the respondent that several claims filed under the Act supported by the Disability Certificates issued by various medical practitioners did not properly and actually reflect the extent and degree of the disability so as to help the authorities to determine the claims properly. Therefore, with a view to provide the necessary guidance for the agency, which deals with the claims made under the Act, instructions have been passed on to insist upon the certificate from a Government doctor as, across the State, the Government hospitals are freely accessible and available. These instructions have been issued only with a view to discourage, if not completely weed out bogus claims under the Act. However, it has been pointed out that the revised guidelines have been issued by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, vide Circular Memo No. G1/28092/97 dated 8th February 1999, a copy of which has also been appended to the counter-affidavit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the respondent has revised suitably the procedure and has passed on the revised instructions as are contained in Circular Memo dated 8th February 1999 and if the same has been complied with fully, the grievance of the writ petitioner does not subsist at all. Therefore, the respondent is directed to faithfully comply with the procedure, while dealing with the claims under the Act as spelt out in their Circular No. G1/28092/97 dated 8th February 1999. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 5th March 2008 ksld : ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ESWAR}