R DHANASEKARAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of dismissal dated 24.9.2007 passed in W.P. (MD) No.4933 of 2005 by the learned singe Judge whereby the relief sought for by the appellant herein by way of issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 5.8.2004 passed by the second respondent and for consequential direction to the second respondent to pay the balance medical reimbursement amount of Rs.1,26,030/-with interest at 18% in respect of heart surgery undergone by his daughter, is rejected.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this appeal are as follows: THE appellant herein was originally appointed as a conductor in the year 1971, in the erstwhile Southern Roadways Limited. When the said company was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Government by way of nationalization by virtue of Act 37 of 1971, the appellant came into the service under the Pandiyan Roadways Corporation and presently which is known as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai, having its headquarters at Madurai. THE appellant was absorbed into the then Pandiyan Roadways Corporation on nationalisation of the Bus Transport Passengers Service owned by the Southern Roadways Limited. Presently, he is working at the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Pudukkottai Division as Traffic Inspector. THE appellant's daughter namely Punitha was referred to Madras Mission Hospital at Chennai to undergo open heart surgery. On 19.06.2001, his daughter had undergone a valve transplantation at Madras Mission hospital at Chennai. According to the appellant, he had spent a sum of Rs.2,26,030/- for her treatment. THE employer of the appellant, the second respondent herein, had also sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.06.2001 towards the expenses for the treatment of his daughter as advance. Though, the appellant is eligible for the medical benefit without any limit, the balance amount of Rs.1,26,030/- was not paid by the second respondent corporation. Since the said amount was not paid, he made representation to the Chief Minister Cell, in respect of which the appellant was informed by a letter dated 20.01.2004 that his request was under consideration. THEreafter, he had also sent several representations for the payment of balance amount of Rs.1,26,030/- to the second respondent on various dates. Since his request was not heeded to , the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition in W.P.No.11090 of 2004 for a direction against the respondents with regard to the payment of balance amount of Rs.1,26,030/-. By order dated 22.04.2004, this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant here in. Accordingly, the respondents by considering the representation sent by the appellant requesting the payment of the balance amount of medical reimbursement of Rs.1,26,030/-passed an order dated 5.8.2004, turning down the request made by the appellant herein. THE said rejection order was passed mainly on the two grounds namely;

(3.) LEARNED single Judge based on the settlement dated 13.02.1999 has come to the conclusion that it was specifically stated in the settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, that special medical benefit involving surgery assistance is only for a maximum sum of Rs.1 lakh and the petitioner had also been paid the said the said amount. Except the said settlement, there is no other provision under which the second respondent Corporation is made liable to pay any other amount and their commitment is limited by the settlement. Further, the learned single Judge has also come to the conclusion that once the appellant becomes an employee after nationalisation of the bus route, then he becomes the employee of the second respondent and as such he has to abide by the terms and conditions as specified in the settlement dated 13.02.1999 entered into between the parties. Hence, his present claim made for the reimbursement of medical claim without any ceiling, based on the earlier service conditions while he was in the services of Southern Roadways Corporation Ltd., cannot be considered, de hors the settlement which binds the appellant.