BETTY THOMAS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE award of the first respondent Labour Court in I. D. No. 208 of 1998, dated 04. 01. 2000, confirming the punishment of dismissal imposed against the petitioner by the second respondent, is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) PETITIONER joined the service of the second respondent as a Staff Nurse in the year 1992. On 12. 10. 1997, at about 05. 30 p. m. , when she was on duty, one Angudoss, estate worker, was brought in a very critical condition to the hospital. The petitioner, with the help of other staff, made the patient to lie on the cot in a male ward and gave oxygen and administered 'coramine' injection. But, the patient died within ten minutes. The management issued a Memo, alleging that the worker died due to the petitioner not giving life saving injection to the worker and it was a misconduct under the Standing Orders, for which the petitioner sent a reply, denying the charge. Thereafter, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner and an inquiry conducted. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the second respondent.

(3.) THE stand of the second respondent was that the petitioner was a senior staff nurse and she did not take stock of the critical condition of the patient by administering the life saving drug, namely, 'adrenaline' or 'decadron', which she was aware, to save the patient; the petitioner also failed to raise the foot end of the cot; she was careless and negligent in discharging her duties as a senior nurse; there were number of incidents where the petitioner committed serious mistakes in her work; she ought not to have admitted the patent in the male ward rather than in Intensive Care Unit, taking into consideration the condition of the patient; she brought disrepute to the hospital and the workmen lost confidence on the services provided by the hospital; the respondent had lost confidence to continue her in the service of the company and, therefore, the respondent was fully justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal, which was based on the findings of the enquiry officer upon evidence.