Bombay High Court
Works Manager Central Workshop S T ... vs Mirza Athar Baig & Anr on 25 August, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1000 OF 2004
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3993 OF 2015
1. The Works-Manager,
Central Workshop,
S.T.Chikalthana,
Aurangabad,
2. The Dy.Gen.Manager (P & IR),
M.S.R.T.C. Mumbai ig -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Mirza Athar Baig,
S/o Mirza Akhtar Baig,
House No.1/10/38, Juna-Bazar,
Aurangabad,
2. S.D.Mane,
Divisional Secretary,
Maharashtra S.T.Workers
Union (INTUC), Central Workshop,
Chikalthana, Aurangabad -- RESPONDENTS
Mr.M.K.Goyanka, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Nawab Patel with Mr.C.V.Thombre, Advocate for respondent No.2.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 25/08/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner/Corporation is aggrieved by the judgment dated
06/10/2003 delivered by the Industrial Court, by which respondent
khs/AUGUST 2016/1000-d
No.1 / employee was granted salary for a special medical leave and
his complaint was therefore allowed.
2. Learned Advocates for the petitioners and the respondents have
been heard at length.
3. There is no dispute that the respondent/employee was
suffering from Tuberculosis and was on leave from 01/01/1994 till
03/07/1995 for about 549 days. By order dated 01/11/1995 bearing
No.140/1995, leave for 549 days was sanctioned 'without pay' by the
petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/employee
preferred Complaint (ULP) No.326/1998 before the Industrial Court,
which was allowed by the impugned judgment.
4. Contention of the petitioner is that there were two circulars
introduced by the Corporation dated 31/03/1982 and 19/02/1988.
The first circular laid down the procedure to be followed by an
employee for taking medical treatment and for sanctioning of his
leave. The circular further states that if the procedure is followed
and the employee subjects himself to the medical treatment of a
specialized hospital treating patients for tuberculosis and registered
with the Corporation, the expenditure for the medical treatment
khs/AUGUST 2016/1000-d
would also be borne held by the Corporation.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent/employee did not
follow the prescribed procedure, did not get himself examined at the
hands of the Civil Surgeon and he did not take medical treatment
from such a hospital which was recognized by the Corporation.
Consequentially, the expenditure incurred by him for such medical
treatment was not reimbursed by the Corporation.
6. Mr.Thombre strenuously contends that once the special leave
was sanctioned by the Corporation, no objection could be raised
since the employee has taken the treatment from the Government
Medical College and Hospital at Aurangabad. It is as good as any
hospital recognized by the Corporation. He was, therefore, entitled
for the leave for 549 days with pay.
7. The circular dated 31/03/1982 apparently is a special
arrangement introduced by the Corporation with the benevolent
object of ensuring that those employees suffering from tuberculosis
are given appropriate medical assistance. It appears that since the
entire medical expenditure incurred for such treatment availed from
a hospital which is recognized by the Corporation, was to be
khs/AUGUST 2016/1000-d
reimbursed, the said circular does not mention that the medical leave
granted would be with wages.
8. A subsequent circular dated 19/02/1988 also prescribes the
procedure to be followed for taking the treatment but does not
mention that the medical leave would be with pay. Both the circulars
require the patient to subject himself to the procedure and only then
he would be entitled for reimbursement of the entire medical
expenditure. I am, therefore, of the view that since the medical
expenses were to be borne by the Corporation, there is no provision
for granting leave with pay since it would amount to a double benefit.
9. However, I find that the Corporation has very casually
conducted the proceedings before the Industrial Court. It did not cite
instances of employees who have followed the circular, had availed of
the medical treatment as per the circular and hence their medical
expenditure was reimbursed and the leave was without pay. Had
these details been brought before the Industrial Court, I find that the
conclusion would have been different than the one arrived at in the
impugned judgment.
10. Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that despite the respondent
khs/AUGUST 2016/1000-d
having violated the circulars, the petitioner sanctioned the leave for
the entire period of 549 days without pay. There is no dispute that
the respondent/employee was not given any reimbursement for the
expenses incurred by him for the medical treatment.
11. In the peculiar facts of the case and without laying down any
precedent considering that the petitioner/Corporation has not led
proper evidence before the Industrial Court to disprove the claim of
the employee, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.40,000/-
(Rs.Forty thousand only) to the respondent, keeping in view that he
has been in litigation for a long time and his medical bills have not
been reimbursed since he had violated the circulars applicable.
12. An amount of Rs.48,947/- has been deposited in this Court on
11/06/2004 by the petitioner. The Industrial Court, by its order in
Application (ULP) No.2/2003 had calculated the total amount payable
as being Rs.72,000/-.
13. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The
impugned judgment dated 06/10/2003 is modified by directing the
petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the respondent/
employee, only because the leave was subsequently sanctioned
khs/AUGUST 2016/1000-d
without pay on 01/11/1995.
14. This order shall not been treated as a precedent since it is
passed keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case and the manner
in which the petitioner conducted the case before the Industrial
Court.
15.
As such, the respondent/employee namely Mirza Athar Baig
shall withdraw an amount of Rs.40,000/- from this Court by
producing evidence with regard to his identity in the form of a self
attested copy of the Pan Card or the election ID card and the
residence proof. The remaining amount with accrued interest shall
be returned to the petitioner, which it may withdraw from this Court.
16. Pending civil application, does not survive and is disposed of.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/AUGUST 2016/1000-d
