IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 886 of 2008
Kheman Mahto ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
2. Medical Superintendent, Apex Medical Board,
M/s BCCL, Dhanbad.
3. Project Officer, Bera Colliery, Dhanbad
4. The General Manager, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : M/s Ashutosh Anand, Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : M/s Anoop Kumar Mehta, Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocates
---------
th
03/ Dated: 8 January, 2010
1. The present writ petition has been preferred against a report given
by the Medical Board about the disability and about the grant of benefits
of Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement. A subjective
conclusion is arrived at by the doctors is basically challenged in the
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the petitioner
consistently alleges that he is unable to perform his work, whereas,
doctors have examined the present petitioner and has arrived at
conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of Clause 9.4.0 of
National Coal Wage Agreement. The said Coal Wage Agreement Clause
reads as under:-
"Clause 9.4.0-Employment to one dependant of a worker, who is
permanently disabled in his place-
(i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from
injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into
loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal
Company concern.
(ii) in case of disablement arising out of general physical
debility so certified by the Coal Company, the employee
concerned will be eligible for the benefit under this Clause
if he/she is up to the age of 58 years."
In view of the aforesaid Clause, the petitioner wants benefit to
perform with the respondents under Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage
Agreement and now the petitioner has already retired, upon reaching the
age of superannuation in June, 2007.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has
submitted that the present petitioner was examined by the doctors, who
have arrived at a conclusion, upon medical checkup of the petitioner,
which is at Annexure-14 to the memo of the petition, as per the said
opinion, the present petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit under
Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement. It is also submitted by
the learned counsel for the respondents that the opinion given by the
experts may not be entertained by this Court in exercise of an extra-
ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Medical Board has examined the present petitioner
and has given an opinion. Medical Board has no personal grudge against
the present petitioner. Thus, there is no misapprehension against the
alleged Medical Board, who has given the medical opinion. In view of
this Medical Board opinion, there is no substance in this writ petition
especially, when the petitioner has already been reached at the age of
superannuation and has retired from June, 2007.
3. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ
petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons:-
(i) The present petitioner was working as Miner Loader with
the respondents and he was claiming that he is unable to perform
the duties and he was entitled to get the benefit under Clause
9.4.0
. of National Coal Wage Agreement and therefore, he was
examined by the doctors and earlier also, opinion was given by
the panel of the doctors.
(ii) The said opinion was challenged by way of a writ petition
bearing W.P.(S) No. 4378 of 2006 and it was order by this Court
dated 15th December, 2006 (Annexure-11 to the memo of the
petition) that again detail reasoning will be given by the
respondents for not to give the benefit or for to give the benefit
under Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement, because
earlier order was not a speaking order.
(iii) It appears that thereafter, again the petitioner was examined
by the panel of doctors of the respondents and vide Annexure-14,
a detailed report has been submitted by the Medical Board, in
which in Clause 11, the opinion of the Medical Board is given,
which reads as under:-
“11. OPINION THE MEDICAL BOARD: IMPIRMENT
ANY WHERE Peripheral Nerves- auricular, where Lt.
Poplilcol Nerves of both sides- NOT THICKENED
OPINION:- From the history, previous treatment records
& present physical findings, the board is of the opinion
that he is suffering from deformity of fingers and toes of
non Hansen’s origin. So the case is not recommended for
consideration under NCWA 9.4.0. However, for
confirmation of diagnosis & second opinion he may be
referred to a tertiary care centre like A.I.I.M.S., New
Delhi.”
In view of the aforesaid opinion, again Medical Board has
arrived at conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the
benefit under Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement,
which is incorporated, hereinabove.
In view of this detailed report and reasoning, it can not be
said that there is non-application of mind, on the contrary,
experts have fully applied their minds and have arrived at
conclusion. In exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am not
inclined to upset the decision arrived at by the panel of doctors,
looking to the nature of the sickness and the nature of infirmity
found out by the Medical Board with the petitioner. The Court is
not a super medical board. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in catena of decision that the Court is not cost Accountant
or Chartered Accountant to evaluate experts’ opinion on accounts.
In a medical opinion also, Court is not having super knowledge
and Court is not a super medical board, nor Court can sit in appeal
upon opinion of medical board. Once, an opinion has been given
by panel of doctors, Court has to check whether the petitioner was
properly medically examined. Secondly, whether the opinion
given by the experts is having a detailed reasoning or not. The
method of arriving at conclusion is to be seen by the Court, but,
not a conclusion itself. Looking to the facts of the present case, in
pursuance of the earlier decision of the writ petition, the Medical
Board has again given an opinion, in detail, at Annexure-14 and I
am fully satisfied that the said opinion is self speaking and with
detailed reasoning and as per that opinion, the petitioner is not
entitled for the benefit under Clause 9.4.0. of National Coal
Wage Agreement.
(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Sugiya Oraon Vs.
Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors. as reported in 2002(1)JCR
304(Jhr.). The facts of the reported case, upon which the reliance
is placed, are far more different from the facts of the present case.
In the reported decision, the petitioner was hospitalized for more
than one year, whereas, in the facts of the present case, the
petitioner was not hospitalized, but, was taking treatment only as
outdoor patient.
4. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons, judicial
pronouncement and looking the opinion, as incorporated, hereinabove, at
Annexure-14, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. There is no
substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.
(D.N. Patel, J)
VK