S SATHEESHKUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to provide legal assistance by way of appointing a Malaysian Advocate at Malaysia to initiate legal proceedings before the Malaysian court or from on behalf of the petitioner for getting full workmen compensation from the fourth respondent in accordance with the Labour Laws at Malaysia. THIS writ petition raises an important Constitutional question as to whether an Indian citizen has a right to seek legal assistance from the Government of India for appointment of an Advocate at Malaysia for initiating legal proceedings before the Malaysian Court or any judicial forum for the purpose of getting full workmen compensation from a Malaysian company.

(2.) THE facts leading to the case are as follows: THE petitioner was a resident of THEvoor village, Nagapattinam. He went to Malaysia and worked in a company called LCL Furniture SDN BHD, fourth respondent. He worked as a Welder from 24.5.2006 to 24.5.2007. On 31.3.2007, he met with an accident during the course and arising out of his employment, which resulted in the fracture of his left leg. He was hospitalized at Malaysia from 31.3.2007 to 09.11.2007. After a major surgery was performed, he returned to India. Once again, he underwent another surgery at India followed by medical treatment. It had resulted in an huge expenditure for him. THE petitioner also claimed that he belonged to Dalit community and was coming from a poor family. He has got no money for paying towards his medical treatment. Though he sought for compensation from the company, i.e. fourth respondent, there was no reply from them.

(3.) MR.M.Pari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharastra Vs. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi and others reported in 1995 (5) SCC 730 in support of his submission. In paragraphs 17 and 18, the Supreme Court observed as follows: