IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32535 of 2008(W)
1. THE MANAGER, CHELLOTTE ESTATE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI.GOPALAN, K.R/517/561, WORKER,
... Respondent
2. WAYANAD ESTATE MAZDOOR SANGHAM,
3. THE INSPECTOR OF PLANTAITIONS, KALPETTA,
4. THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS,
5. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :12/11/2008
O R D E R
V. GIRI, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 32535 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
The Manager of a Tea Plantation, employing 300 employees,
challenges the order, Ext.P3, passed by the 3rd respondent as
affirmed by the 4th respondent in this Writ Petition. The 1st
respondent herein was a field worker in the service of the petitioner
has since retired on 30.04.02. He developed an illness in 1998. He
was referred to the Good Shepherd Hospital, Vythiri. From there he
was referred to the Medical College, Calicut. It seems that the
worker on his own choice, decided to undergo treatment under the
Sree Sathya Sayee Institute of Higher Medical Sciences in
Puttaparthy. He later claimed reimbursement of the medical
expenses as per Ext.P1.
2. When the petitioner did not accept the claim, it was lodged
before the 3rd respondent, the Chief Inspector of Plantations.
Petitioner submitted a detailed objection. For a claim of Rs.
18,749.80, the 3rd respondent by Ext.P2 allowed recovery of an
amount of Rs. 8,579/-. Ext.P3 appeal preferred by the petitioner and
Ext.P4 cross appeal preferred by the workman were disposed of by
W.P.(C)No. 32535 OF 2008
-:2:-
the 4th respondent under Ext.P5. Cross appeal filed by the workman
was allowed. This was again challenged by the petitioner before the
5th respondent, who dismissed the same under Ext.P7. Exts.P2, P5
and P7 are under challenge in this Writ Petition.
3. I heard Sri.George Thomas Mevada, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel submits that as a Manager the petitioner
was obliged to provide hospital facility to the workmen in terms of
Rule 33 of the Kerala Plantation Labour Rules. It is the obligation of
the petitioner to see that medical facilities are made available in the
hospital of the estate or in a hospital where treatment is arranged by
the Management. Here the workman availed the medical facility in a
hospital far away in Puttaparthy. Petitioner cannot be mulcted with
the liability arising therefrom. I find considerable force in the
submission made by the petitioner and I would have proceeded to
examine the writ petition in further detail. But I refrain from doing so,
essentially for the reason that the amounts now awarded do not
seem to be prohibitive and the workman himself retired in 2002.
But, I agree with the submission of Sri.George Thomas that, the view
taken by the statutory authorities in the impugned order should not
W.P.(C)No. 32535 OF 2008
-:3:-
have be treated as a precedent in future.
5. Going by the Rules, the obligation of the management was
to provide medical facilities either by themselves or in a hospital
where facilities are available. Though the workman was referred to
the Calicut Medical College Hospital, he chose to go to Sree Sathya
Sayee Institute of Higher Medical Sciences in Puttaparthy. There is
no material on record to indicate that the facilities available in the
Calicut Medical College were otherwise inadequate to treat the
workman. If that be so, the facility availed by the workman on his
own, could not have been taken as a discharge of obligation by the
petitioner.
6. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of without
interfering with the orders impugned, but making it clear that the
obligation of the Manager in terms of the Plantation Labour Act and
Rules is to provide medical facilities either on his own or in a hospital
designated in that behalf. The award made under Exts.P2, P5 and
P7 shall not be treated as a precedent in future.
(V. GIRI, JUDGE)
ttb