← Library
Madras High CourtWP/29581/2004disposed of

The Management, Tamilnadu v. The Labour Court

2021-07-31Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 31.07.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.No.29581 of 2004 and WMP.No.35927 of 2004 The Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Coimbatore Div II Ltd, Now known as Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation, Erode Region, Chennimalai Road, Erode-I.

...Petitioner

-vs1.The Presiding Officer, The Labour Court, Salem.

2.K.N.Sivan Malai

...Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the award made in C.P.No.261 of 1999 dated 29.01.2003 on the file of first respondent herein and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sundaravadanam For R2 : Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed by the Transport Corporation, challenging the order dated 29.01.2003, passed by the 1st respondent / Authority in C.P.No.261 of 1999

2. It is the case of the Petitioner / Management that the Employee / 2nd Respondent joined the services of the Management in the year 1997 as Driver and caused a fatal accident, in which five passengers died and 57 passengers were injured. When the Writ Petition was filed, a criminal case was pending and both the parties are not aware of the status of the criminal case.

3. It is stated by the Employee that he was dismissed from service on 25.02.1999 and the same was questioned before the Labour Court by raising an Industrial Dispute. However, the

Employee is unable to furnish the details about the award before this Court, except saying that the petition filed by the Management, challenging the award was subsequently dismissed.

4. Be that as it may, the issue on hand is with regard to the claim of a sum of Rs.56,965/- by the Employee towards the expenses incurred by him for the medical treatment, surrender leave pay and arrears of salary.

5. Learned counsel for the Management contended that G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 10.02.1994 would be extended to the Employee, if he had taken treament in the Government Hospital and that the bills submitted by the Employee was sent to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore to assess the Government Hospital rate for the treatment. The employee was asked to appear before the Hospital Authorities, but he did not turn up and his salary upto 31.01.1999 was paid and for the period between 01.02.1999 to 24.02.1999, a sum of Rs.4,889/- was paid. However, the labour Court has erroneously passed an order without appreciating the fact that G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 10.02.1994 stipulates payment of medical expenses at the rate of Government Hospital only and the Management can proceed only in accordance with the said Government Order. The Labour Court erred in wrongly computing the amount and directed the Management to pay the amount.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

7. It is not the case of the Management that the Employee had not taken any treatment at all and the only plea raised by the Management is that the reimbursement of medical expenses to the Employee would be based on the rate prevalent at the Government Hospital. Labour Court rightly held that when a Government Hospital does not have the facility, it is incumbent on the Employer to reimburse the entire amount paid to the hospital, in the light of the judgments reported in 2001 (3) LLN 580 and 91 FJR 324. The Labour Court, after analysing the evidence on record, held that as the employee did not claim any compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act or MCOP, claiming compensation, he would be entitled to benefits and arrived at a sum of Rs.46,465.85 towards medical expenses and restricted the claim to Rs.45,000/-.

8. Labour Court further held that the Employee is entitled to leave wages and the same has not been denied. The Employee demanded Rs.7,000/- and the employer stated that the employee would be entitled to only Rs.4889.15/-. Finally, it was computed that the Employee is entitled to Rs.53,389/- which is inclusive of Rs.4889/- towards arrears of salary (as admitted by the Management) and Rs.3,500/- for surrender leave salary. However, the demand of interest at the rate of 18% was negatived by the

Labour Court and the Management was directed to pay the amount with 9% interest p.a., within three months, along with a cost of Rs.250/-.

9. On reading of the order of the Labour Court, I find that there is no perversity in the order of the Labour Court in computing the amount. The Management has not established that the Government Hospital has got better facilities to extend the treatment to the Employee. The demand for reimbursement of the medical claim is perfectly justified and the Labour Court has rightly computed a sum of Rs.53,389/- for the aforesaid claims.

10. The claim was made in the year 1999 and 22 years have gone by. Though the rate of interest as directed by the Labour Court cannot said to be excessive, taking note of the present pandemic situation, this Court reduces the rate of interest to 6% instead of 9% and the rest of the portion of the order is hereby confirmed. The monetary benefits due (as per the modified order of this Court in respect of interest) shall be extended to the Employee within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar dpq To:

The Presiding Officer, The Labour Court, Salem.

+1 CC to Mr.K.V.Shanmuganathan, Advocate sr 37615. W.P.No.29581 of 2004 AD(CO) SP(01/11/2021)