MAR BASELIOS MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL Vs. JOSEPH BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in the Writ Appeal from the decision (Mar. Baselius Medical Mission Hospital v. Joseph Babu, 2007 1 KerLT 783) filed by a hospital is whether the learned single Judge was right in confirming the order of the Labour Court holding that a consultant Physician employed by the appellant is a "worker" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D.Act').

(2.) We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, counsel appearing for the first respondent-Medical Doctor who is the claimant before the Labour Court and the Government Pleader who, while appearing for the Labour Court, supported the case of the first respondent that the Medical Doctor is a workman within the meaning of that term contained in the I.D.Act.

(3.) Admittedly, the claimant in this case is a Post-Graduate Doctor in General Medicine, who was employed in the appellant's hospital on a monthly salary of Rs. 8,200/- in the year 1989. After leaving the service of the hospital, the Doctor filed a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act before the Labour Court claiming wage arrears for Sundays and holidays worked by him during 1989 to 1991, i.e., for the period prior to his leaving the service of the hospital. The appellant resisted the claim mainly on the ground that the Doctor is not a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act entitling him to maintain a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act before the Labour Court. The Labour Court overruled the appellant's objection and found that the first respondent was entitled to realise an amount of Rs. 66,000/- as holiday wages and Sunday wages from the appellant. When the order of the Labour Court was challenged before this Court, the learned Single Judge, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. v. Burma Shell Management Staff Association and Ors., 1970 2 LLJ 590, held that Doctor is also a "workman" within the meaning of that term contained in the I.D. Act. It is against this judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed.