Dismissed

Beenachi Estate v. Smt.T.Suseela

Kerala HC25 Feb 2016WP(C)/27534/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders under the Plantation Labour Act requiring an estate to reimburse an employee's medical bills for private hospital treatment. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the scheme's finding that the employee faced a strike at the public hospital and rejecting the claim that lack of time prevented document production.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner is directed to comply with the orders under the Plantation Labour Act to reimburse the employee's medical bills.

Beenachi Estate Vs Smt.T.Suseela — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/6TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 27534 of 2014 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BEENACHI ESTATE

¶8

(PROVIDENT INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD), BEENACHI POST SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

SMT.T.SUSEELA

¶12

W/O K.K. GOPI, KANNATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, BEENACHI POST SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592.

¶13

SRI. K.SAIDALAVI

¶14

SECRETARY, WAYANAD ESTATE LABOUR UNION (CITU) VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673576.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.MADHAVAN NAIR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-022016, THE COURT ON 25.02.2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 27534 of 2014 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.8.2011 PASSED BY THE INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS, KALPETTA.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THEORDER DATED 10.9.2013 IN M.C.A.NO.18/2011 PASSED BY THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS, KOTTAYAM.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY TEH PETITIONER BEFORE THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST EXHIBITS P1 AND P2 ORDERS.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 5.6.2014, ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 11.6.2014 ALONG WITH WHICH THE PETITIONER FORWARD EXHIBIT PP4 TO THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 11.6.2014 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 16.6.2014 ALONG WITH WHICH THE PETITIONER FORWARDED EXHIBIT P6 TO THE LABOUR COMMSSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHARUAM ON 19.6.2014, EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXHIBITS P6 AND P7.

¶28

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.8.2014 OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISMISSING EXBHIBITS P3 APPEAL.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶30

EXT.R1(A): TRUE COPY OF CATHETERISATION APPOINTMENT CARD ISSUED BY THE CALICUT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL.

¶31

EXT.R1(B): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CONSULTANT PHYSICIAN OF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, CALICUT.

¶32

TRUE COPY

¶33

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶34

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶35

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.27534 of 2014

¶36

= = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibits P1, P2 and P9 orders passed under the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.65,394/- to the 1^st respondent, who was an employee in its estate. It is contended that the writ petitioner is an estate owned by a Government Undertaking of the State of Madhya Pradesh and had 14 permanent workers. The 1^st respondent is a field worker in the estate. She had undergone a surgery for cardiac ailment at a private hospital and the Inspector of Plantations had, by Exhibit P1, directed the writ petitioner to pay the amounts expended by her towards reimbursement of medical bills. The appeal against Exhibit P1 was rejected by Exhibit P2 order and the second appeal was dismissed by Exhibit P9 order. All the authorities found that the 1^st respondent was an employee of the estate who was eligible for reimbursement of medical claim and that she had to undergo angioplasty at the Omega

¶39

W.P.(C).No.27534 of 2014

¶40

¶41

Hospital, Mangalore due to a strike of doctors at Medical College Hospital, Calicut. The only contention taken by the petitioner before the authorities was to the effect that it was not liable to reimburse the claims, since the procedure was conducted in a private hospital.

¶42

2.Heard Sri.Mathew Kuriakose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.N.Govindankutty Menon, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶43

3.The contention raised by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent is to the effect that the writ petitioner had sought time before the Commissioner to produce replies to the request made under the Right to Information Act to prove that there was no strike in the Cardiology Department of Medical College during the period in question. It is stated that sufficient time was not granted for production of documents and the second appeal was disposed of. Petitioner contends that Exhibits P4 and P7 would show that there was no strike of permanent doctors in the cardiology, physiology and

¶44

W.P.(C).No.27534 of 2014

¶45

¶46

forensic medicine department of the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode during the period in question.

¶47

4.The complaint leading to Exhibit P1 order was filed on 8.2.2010. It is clear that it was the consistent case of the 1^st respondent that it was due to an indefinite strike of doctors at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode that she was forced to avail treatment from a private hospital. This has been taken note of in Exhibit P1 order dated 26.8.2011 as well as Exhibit P2 appellate order dated 10.9.2013. Exhibit P3 appeal is dated 4.1.2014. However, Exhibit P4 reveals that the application under the Right to Information Act was made only on 30.4.2014. The plea of the petitioner that the last date of hearing of the second appeal was on 28.5.2014 and that the documents which were sent to the Labour Commissioner on 9.6.2014 were not considered while passing Exhibit P9 order cannot therefore be countenanced. The petitioner has no excuse for not making any attempt to procure and produce the documents before the original or appellate authority. It was only when the second appeal was in its last posting stage that the petitioner even thought of making the application.

¶48

W.P.(C).No.27534 of 2014

¶49

¶50

Existence of a strike which disabled the 1^st respondent from getting proper treatment at the Medical College Hospital is a pure question of fact which has been found against the petitioner by the authorities under the statute on the basis of the material available before them. The impugned orders cannot be faulted only for the reason that the writ petitioner had not been given sufficient time to produce the replies. It had sought under the R.T.I. Act before Exhibit P9 order was passed, even if such a contention is sustainable in view of the clear findings to the contrary in Exhibit P9. Exhibits P4 and P6, which were sought to be produced by themselves, would not absolve the petitioner of its statutory responsibility to make payments under the Act. The 1^st respondent has also produced the documents to show that she had approached the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for treatment, but facilities were unavailable because of an indefinite strike of medical staff. The statutory and appellate authorities having considered the contentions of the writ petitioner as well and having come to a factual conclusion, I do not see any reason to upset the findings on fact entered into by the three

¶51

W.P.(C).No.27534 of 2014

¶52

¶53

authorities concurrently. No patent error, illegality or lack of jurisdiction is brought to my notice which vitiate the impugned orders so as to justify an interference with the findings of the statutory authorities under the Act.

¶54

The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶55

sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶56

Beenachi Estate v. Smt.T.Suseela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beenachi Estate v. Smt.T.Suseela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Corporate Manager, Corporate Edtn Vs State of Kerala

Daisy Varghese Vs the District Registrar

Sandhya Rani v. Vs State of Kerala

Viji Dias Vs State of Kerala

Premdas Vs the Manjeri Muncipality

Azad T. Vs the Akathethara Grama Panchayath