MANMOHAN KAUL Vs. HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens; Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; is the preamble of our prestigious Constitution which govern the entire country, the citizens and also their fundamental rights. Right to livelihood and life is an integral facet of right to life. Nobody could question and deny the enjoyment of this fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 12 of the Constitution of India defines the State which reads thus: Definition: In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 is a State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and if that is the position, respondent No. 1 is duty bound to take care of life of the citizen specially when the said citizen is an officer in its company. Article 21 of the Constitution of India speaks about protection of life and personal liberty. The State like respondent No. 1 would definitely not allow a citizen of India who is serving in its establishment on the post of Dy. Manager like petitioner and would definitely take care of life of its employee and if respondent No. 1 would fail to take care of life of its employee like petitioner, it would amount to throttling of preamble of the Constitution as well as aim, object and scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY, at the relevant point of time, in between December, 1991 to 1993 the petitioner was serving on the post of Dy. Manager (Law ). He became seriously ill and was referred to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore (T. N. ). In that regard Annexure P-1 may be taken into consideration. The expert of the said Medical College at Vellore Dr. M. S. Chandy raised his hand, since he was unable to perform the operation of the petitioner and, according to his advise, the only doctor in the universe who could treat the petitioner was Dr. Laligam N. Shekhar who was serving at Pitsburgh in USA. Accordingly, on January 13, 1992 Dr. Chandy referred the petitioner to Dr. Laligam N. Shekhar in USA for treatment of right middle cranial fossa. The Doctor also expressed the possibility of Trigerminal Schwannoma. The doctor also opined that angiogram has been ruled out an aneurysm. Dr. Sri ramchandra wrote letter to Dr. Laligam Sekhar on behalf of Dr. Chandy. Mr. A. K. Dey, Asstt. Manager (Administration) of respondent No. 1 has written note sheet in regard to the physical condition of the petitioner mentioning that Dr. Chandy at Christian Medical College and Hospital is saying that the disease is of such a nature that it can not be fully treated in India so they (the doctors) planned to send him to USA for treatment. It is further written in the note-sheet that the petitioner has requested the management to grant approval for treatment at USA. It has been further mentioned in the note sheet by said Mr. Dey that since the brain tumor case of the petitioner is not treated at Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, the petitioner left the said Medical College on 13-1-1992 and proceeded to Bangalore on his way to USA for his treatment. In the note sheet it has been mentioned that the petitioner has requested to Mr. Dey to inform the matter to the management for granting permission and sanction of leave etc.