MANAGEMENT OF KONJUMALAI ESTATE KORAMALAI GROUP Vs. CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR TEYNAMPET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the management of a plantation covered by the Plantation Labour Act. THEy resisted the claim made by the second respondent made before the first respondent towards medical reimbursement for having undergone a surgery in a private hospital for the removal of her uterus. Since the claim of the second respondent was not considered by the plantation owners, she filed a complaint under Rule 27 of the Tamil Nadu Plantation Labour Rules, 1955. THE first respondent being the competent authority went into the issue. He found that the second respondent as she had excessive bleeding required immediate medical attention. THErefore, she had to get admitted into a private hospital for the removal of her uterus. Though the second respondent made a claim of medical reimbursement of Rs.11,000/-, but when she made a complaint earlier to the Chief Inspector of Plantations, she had only claimed a sum of Rs.8,292/-. In that view of the matter, the first respondent gave a direction that the petitioner is liable to refund a sum of Rs.8,292/- together with costs of Rs.500/-. THE direction also further stated that if the amount is not paid within 15 days, forced recoveries would be made under Rule 28 of the said Rules.

(2.) THE writ petition was admitted on 09.11.1999. This Court by an interim order directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.8,800/-. THE second respondent was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,000/- out of the said deposit.

(3.) IN the present case, the fact that the second respondent had an uterus problem and it had to be removed since there was excessive bleeding was not denied. The fact that such a surgery was performed in a private hospital and that she had incurred expenditure was also not denied. The only apprehension of the petitioner Management is that though they had full medical facilities, it was wrong on the part of the first respondent to have rendered a finding that they were having inadequate medical facilities. If this fact is allowed to be on record, similar claims will be forthcoming from other workmen.