G UDAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the accused in S.T.R.Nos.5349, 5350, 5351, 5352 sand 5353 of 2000, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, has filed the above Criminal Original Petitions, praying to quash the said proceedings, on the ground that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Act, 1951 and Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Rules, 1955, every employer of plantations which employ 1000 or more workers shall provide the medical facilities with own garden hospital, plantations employing more than 200 workers but less then 1000 workers shall provide the medical facilities with combined garden hospital and own dispensary, plantations employing 200 or less workers shall provide the medical facilities with dispensary either individually or in groups with necessary equipments and arrangements for visiting doctors and the employers shall ensure that the doctor visits the dispensary at least thrice a week; that each garden hospital shall be under a qualified medical practitioner assisted by at least one trained nurse, one trained maternity assistant, a qualified pharmacist, one man and one woman Nursing Orderly, one toti and one sweeper; that the services of the staff shall be readily available during all hours, provided that in the case of doctors, nurses, maternity assistants and pharmacists employed in plantation at the commencement of these rules, the Chief Inspector of Plantations may in consultation with the Director of Medical Services grant exemption from possessing the qualifications prescribed for them; that as far as the petitioner herein is concerned, he is named as an employer of Billimalai Estates, (five estates, in all) which have workers, all put together, far less than 200, and hence, as per the rules it requires to have only a dispensary, that too, either individually or in groups; that the only obligation is that there should be a visiting doctor, who visits the dispensary thrice a week; that in addition to rule, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued a notification, which requires that a qualified nurse or pharmacist is also required to be appointed in the dispensary; that as noticed in the Notification, the petitioners plantation has a Staff Nurse and a visiting Medical Officer who visits the dispensary thrice a week; that on the other hand the respondent/complainant without adverting to the facts that the plantation of the petitioners are covered by the Classification of Rule 21(1), proceeded to presume that the employer has violated the provisions of Rule 21(2) of Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Rules; that the plantation in which the petitioner is an employer has only 43 workers; that in the absence of basic material to show the need to have a Garden Hospital or a combined Garden Hospital, the allegation against the petitioner is without substance and hence he would pray to quash the said proceedings.

(2.) One more ground raised on the part of the petitioner is that under Section 39 of Chapter VII of the Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Act, the complaint should have been preferred by the Chief Inspector or with the previous sanction, in writing, of the Chief Inspector of Plantations, but the present prosecution has been instituted at the behest of the Chief Inspector, before according sanction to prosecute the petitioner; that the Chief Inspector of Plantations has not identified the basic requirements of the Rules alleged to have been violated by the petitioner/employer; that without adverting to the basic facts and not looking into the Government Order and without considering the approved medical scheme applicable to the Billimalai Estate, the sanction had been accorded; that the sanctioning authority had not applied his mind before according his sanction and hence, the sanction accorded and prosecution initiated have not only caused incurable prejudice to the petitioner, but also against the provisions of the Act and hence the above proceedings are liable to be quashed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate on the (Crl.side) appearing on behalf of the respondent.