MULJIBHAI PATEL UROLIGICAL HOSPITAL Vs. ARUNABEN I DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner hospital management has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 19. 11. 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Nadiad in Reference (LCA) No. 831 of 1986 directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 50% back-wages with continuity of service.

(2.) PETITIONER is one of the best Urological hospital in Gujarat i. e. 'muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital' at Nadiad and the respondent was serving as nurse in the said hospital. The petitioner hospital is a charitable hospital and research institution for kidney diseases registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. It appears that the main object of the Trust is to provide social and medical services to the public and it seems that it is a non- profitable institution.

(3.) THE respondent was appointed as staff nurse by order dated 06. 02. 1984 initially on probation for a period of six months. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner hospital that one Shri Abbas Ali was suffering from kidney diseases, admitted as indoor patient in the petitioner hospital and was operated for urine by pass surgery. The respondent nurse was on duty on 19. 03. 1985 as staff nurse in night shift and was in-charge of the said patient. Suddenly, at midnight on 19. 03. 1985 the patient had started stomach pain and there was leakage of urine through the hole made in abdomen which was closed. Therefore, the patient had sent one Shri Bhikhabhai to call the nurse so as to call the concerned Doctor immediately. But she did not turn up. After some time again, she was being called by the relatives of the patient but the respondent did not responded for an hour. After sometime, the respondent responded and said that she cannot call the Doctor at this time and she will call in the morning. Thus the respondent nurse did not attend the patient. The patient made complaint to the Director of the petitioner- hospital as the respondent nurse failed to discharge her duties honestly and diligently and committed serious misconduct of negligence. Looking to the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct, departmental inquiry came to be initiated against the respondent nurse and she was served with show cause notice dated 25. 03. 1985 for her acts of subversive of discipline. After holding legal and proper departmental inquiry; after giving fullest opportunity to defend her case and after both parties led their evidence before the inquiry officer and after considering evidence on record, the Inquiry Officer recorded his evidence and found respondent nurse guilty for the charges levelled against her i. e. negligence and carelessness of duty as nurse. Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 02. 02. 1986. The respondent nurse was served with second show cause notice dated 03. 01. 1986 along with inquiry report and she was called upon to show cause as to why her services should not be terminated looking to the gravity and seriousness of the proved misconduct and past record. At this stage it is required to be noted that in the last one year, the respondent nurse was served with four notices for her negligence in her duties; two warnings for misbehaviour with the superior officers; twice she was suspended for other misconduct and once she tendered apology. That after considering explanation tendered by the respondent, the petitioner hospital management by order dated 16. 01. 1986 terminated the services of the respondent nurse.