The Divisional Controller vs Mr.Rambhau Pundlikrao Kalambe on 17 January, 2009

Bombay High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Mr.Rambhau Pundlikrao Kalambe on 17 January, 2009
Bench: S.R. Dongaonkar


                          NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR

                         WRIT PETITION NO.4735/08
    PETITIONER:          The Divisional Controller , Maharashtra State
                         Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur Division,

                         Railway Station Road, Nagpur.
    RESPONDENT:          Mr.Rambhau Pundlikrao Kalambe, aged about 62

                         years, occupation : Nil (Retd) r/o Plot No. 80,
                         Nalanda Nagar, Bhagwan Nagar, Post Parwati
                         Nagar, Nagpur 440027.
    Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner

    Shri Feroz I. Khan, Advocate for respondent

    DATE:     17.1.2009.


              Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:15:34 :::

the parties.

2] The respondent is the employee of the petitioner. He had to

undergo heart bye-pass surgery. It was performed in Spandan Heart

Institute & Research Center (I) Ltd., Nagpur. Expenditure incurred for

this treatment was about Rs. 1,28,251/-. Petitioner had sanctioned the

advance to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- for the operation. Said

amount was paid directly to the Spandan Heart Institute & Research

Centre (I) Ltd., Nagpur . The respondent was required to pay more

amount. As the full claim was not sanctioned by the petitioner, the

respondent filed ULPN 352/2004 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur.

The learned Member, allowed the claim holding that the petitioner

had engaged itself in unfair labour practices under Item 9 Rule 4 of

M.R. T. U. & P.U.L.P. Act 1971 and directed the petitioner to

reimburse the amount of Rs.50,487/- which was deducted from the

retiral benefits; holding that it was inadmissible as per government

resolutions This order of the Industrial Court is challenged in this


::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:15:34 :::

3] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

claim for medical reimbursement for such type of operation is

admissible as per rules as stated in paragraph 5 of the petition.

According to him, some of the items of expenditure are not

reimbursable . Therefore, the total reimbursement for which the

respondent is entitled is of Rs.64,970/- only. According to him, as the

order of the Industrial Court directs full reimbursement; it is against

the rules and entitlement of the respondent for the medical

reimbursement in the instant case. As such, according to him, this

petition should be allowed and the matter be remanded back to the

Industrial Court for fresh disposal according to rules and relevant

government resolutions.

4] Learned counsel for the respondent has, contended that the

petitioner had failed to produce relevant documents on record to

suggest as to the quantum of entitlement of reimbursement of the

respondent for such operation. He also submitted that the petitioner

has hypothetically given the calculation about the entitlement of the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:15:34 :::

reimbursement of the claim of the respondent. His main contention is

that as during the complaint proceedings petitioner did not file

relevant documents on record, nor led any evidence, it should not be

now allowed to file such documents on record and claim the reliefs in

the petition based on those documents

5] I have given anxious consideration to the contentions raised

by the parties. Claim of reimbursement for the heart surgery of the

respondent seems to be of Rs.60,487/-. It is not disputed that the

standard of reimbursement of medical expenditure for such ailment or

operation like bye-pass surgery is equivalent to the extent that may be

required for such treatment at Bombay Hospital, Bombay. There is

nothing on record to suggest that at Bombay Hospital, the expenditure

for such operation would have been less than Rs.1,25,000/-. It

appears that the reasons for deduction pointed out by the petitioner in

the petition seems to be of the standards of 1997. There must have

been considerable increase and perhaps to the large extent for the

medical expenditure at such hospital for such ailment like heart

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:15:34 :::

surgery. Taking into consideration this fact, I am of the opinion that in

the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this court, considering the facts

of the present case, no interference with the impugned order is called

for. In my opinion even remand of the matter as vehemently pressed

by learned counsel for petitioner is also not necessary as it would only

multiply the litigation and nothing more. As such petition is dismissed.

Rule discharged.



::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:15:34 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information