1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4735/08
PETITIONER: The Divisional Controller , Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur Division,
Railway Station Road, Nagpur.
VERSUS
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
=====================================
CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J.
DATE: 17.1.2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:15:34 :::
2
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
petition.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:15:34 :::
3
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 :::
4
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 :::
5
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.
JUDGE
smp.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:15:34 :::