WP(C)/5180/2014
2025 Latest Caselaw 660 Gua

Gauhati High Court

WP(C)/5180/2014 on 19 May, 2025

GAHC010016182014




                                                2025:GAU-AS:6189

              IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
 (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)


                 WP(C) No.5180/2014

            1.     M/s Kakadonga Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.
                   A company registered under the Companies
                   Act, 1956, having its registered office at K.B.
                   Road, Jorhat-785001, District- Jorhat.

            2. The Management of Kakadonga Tea Estate,
               P.O. Gotonga, District- Jorhat.


                                                ........Petitioners

                           -Versus-

            1. The State of Assam,
                 Represented      by    the   Commissioner      and
                 Secretary to the Government of Assam,
                 Labour and Employment Department, Dispur,
                 Guwahati- 781006

            2. The Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha,
                   Jorhat Circle, P.O.- Jorhat, District- Jorhat,
                   Assam, PIN- 785001


                                                        Page 1 of 36
                   3. Shri Anil Saikia,
                      S/o Late Padma Nath Saikia,
                      Village and P.O.- Dhekia-Khowa,
                      District- Jorhat, Assam, PIN- 785113.


                                                   .......Respondents.

-BEFORE-

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. N. Deka.

Advocate for respondents : Ms. A. Bhattacharyya.

: Mr. R. Sarmah, Amicus Curiae.

Date of hearing                     : 08.04.2025

Date of Judgment                    : 19.05.2025



               JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

       Heard       Mr.   N.    Deka,     learned     counsel     for   the

petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. Rakesh Sarmah, learned Amicus Curiae.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside and quashing the Award dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Industrial

Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in Reference Case No.3/2010 (which was published vide a Notification dated 31.07.2014).

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.3 was an employee of the tea estate owned by the petitioner No.1. In the year 2008, the wife of the respondent No.3 was brought to the Garden Hospital of the said tea estate, where she was given treatment and thereafter was taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital, from where she was referred to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the wife of the respondent No.3 was diagnosed with cancer, and she was taken to a private nursing home in Jorhat, and from there she was taken to Mumbai for treatment. After returning from Mumbai, the respondent No.3 submitted a bill of Rs.2,10,810/- to the petitioner No.2 i.e. the management of the said tea estate for reimbursement. However, the petitioner No.2 declined to reimburse the same. Situated thus, the respondent No.3 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in Reference Case No.3/2010. In the aforesaid reference, the learned Industrial Tribunal by order dated 07.06.2014, held that the petitioners are liable to reimburse the subject medical bill of the respondent No.3. Against the aforesaid Award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that under the provisions of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 & The Assam Plantations Labour Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1951 Act' and '1956 Rules' respectively), the management is only required to provide medical facilities in the Garden Hospitals as prescribed by the aforesaid Act and Rules and the same does not include treatment of cancer or any such serious diseases. He further submits that the respondent No.3 did not come within the purview of the term 'worker' as per Section 2(k) of the 1951 Act and as such, the reimbursement bill in respect of the medical treatment of the wife of the respondent No.3 is not maintainable. He further submits that, however, the wife of the respondent No.3 was given treatment in the Garden Hospital as a goodwill gesture, and when she could not be treated there, she was taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital, wherefrom she was referred to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital.

5. Per contra, Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that it is the fundamental right of the worker to health and medical aid during service. She further submits that it is imperative for the petitioner tea estate, to protect the health of the workmen and their families and to take all such actions that will promote the health, strength, and vigour of the workmen and their families during the period of employment, and denial thereof amounts to violation of the

right of the workman guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of the said submission, she relies upon the following decisions:-

i) Consumer Education & Research Centre and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1995) 3 SCC 42;

(ii) Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336;

(iii) Runu Raj Kumari Phukan Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2000) 3 GLT 27;

(iv) Soram Nabakumar Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., reported in (2015) 3 GLT(MN) 722;

(v) Samurailatpam Sarojini Devi Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., reported in 2017 2 GLT (MN) 88.

6. She further submits that whenever a reference is made by a government to an Industrial Tribunal, it has to be presumed that there is a genuine industrial dispute between the parties requiring adjudication. She accordingly submits that this Court while judicially reviewing the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal should as far as possible, attempt to sustain the Award and refrain from picking holes here and there in the Awards on trivial points and ultimately frustrating the entire adjudication process before the tribunals by striking down Awards on hyper-technical grounds. She further submits that in reference cases, the Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide questions

that are incidental to the reference. In support of the aforesaid submission, she relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court: -

i) Calcutta Port Shramik Union Vs. Calcutta River Transport Association and Ors., reported in 1988 (Supp.) SCC 768;

(ii) Sadhu Ram Vs. Dehli Transport Corporation, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 156.

7. Mr. Rakesh Sarmah, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that the Industrial Tribunal derives its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute from the order of reference and does not extend beyond the terms thereof. He further submits that in the event an Award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal is found to be in excess of its jurisdiction, the same can be corrected by the High Court by exercising its certiorari jurisdiction. He further submits that the tribunal cannot pass an Award contrary to the provisions of law. In view of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the following decisions: -

(i) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Om Prakash Sharma, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 123;

(ii) State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 561;

(iii) Workmen of the Hercules Insurance Co. Ltd.

Vs. Hercules Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta, reported in 1960 SCC OnLine SC 339;

(iv) N.S. Giri Vs. Corporation of City of Mangalore and Ors., reported in (1999) 4 SCC 697;

(v) Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 192;

(vi) Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors., reported in 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24.

8. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the contending parties including the learned Amicus Curiae and also perused the material available on record. I have also considered the case laws cited at the bar.

9. It appears that upon the management/petitioner No.2 refusing to reimburse the medical bill in relation to the treatment of the wife of the respondent No.3 at a hospital in Mumbai, the respondent No.3 raised a dispute, which after conciliation having failed, the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour and Employment Department, vide notification dated 13.07.2010, referred the same to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the '1947 Act') for adjudicating the said dispute. The reference reads as hereunder:-

"1. Whether the management of the Kakodonga Tea Estate was justified in refusing to pay Medical Bill Rs.2,10,810 (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten) only to Shri Anil Saikia for his wife suffering from Cancer even on humanitarian consideration?

2. If yes, what relief the workman is entitled in lieu thereof?

3. If not, whether the workman is entitled for simple interest on the Billed amount of Rs.2,10,810/-

4. Any other relief?"

10. A perusal of the aforesaid reference indicates that the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal is, inter alia, whether the management/petitioner No.2 was justified in refusing to pay the medical bill to respondent No.3 in relation to his wife's cancer treatment.

11. The short question arising in this writ petition is therefore whether the management/petitioner No.2 is required in law to provide cancer treatment in their Garden Hospitals for the workers employed in the plantation and their families thereof; and in the event such facilities are not available, whether the expenses incurred by such worker in relation to such treatment availed outside the Garden Hospital are required to be reimbursed.

12. In order to answer the aforesaid question, it is apt to first ascertain whether there is any law that creates a mandatory obligation upon the petitioners to provide for

cancer treatment for their workers and their families thereof. Pertinent that since there was no comprehensive legislation regulating the condition of the lives of the labour employed in the plantation industry, the Plantation Labour Bill was introduced for the welfare of labour employed in plantations on the report of the labour investigation committee, which was passed by both houses of Parliament and received the assent of the President on 02.11.1951. This Act is called the 1951 Act, which came into force on 01.04.1954. Apt to refer to the statement of objects and reasons for enacting the said legislation, which reads as hereunder: -

"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

In spite of the fact that the plantation industry provides employment for more than a million workers, there is at present no comprehensive legislation regulating the conditions of labour in the industry. The Tea Districts Emigrant Labour Act, 1932, which applies only to Assam, regulates merely the conditions of recruitment of labour for employment in the tea gardens of Assam. The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which applies to estates growing cinchona, coffee, rubber or tea also does not confer any substantial benefit on plantation labour as accidents in plantations are few. The other Labour Acts, like the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, benefit plantation labour only to a very limited extent. In its report the Labour Investigation Committee observed "that as the conditions of life and employment on plantations were different from those on other industries, it would be very difficult to fit plantation labour in the general framework of the Industrial Labour Legislation without creating serious anomalies" and recommended a plantation Labour Code covering all plantation areas.

2. The present Bill, drafted as an all-India measure, seeks to regulate the conditions of plantation labour generally. It applies in the first instance to tea, coffee, rubber and cinchona plantations, but the State Government may apply it to any other plantations. Provision is made in the Bill for assuring to the worker reasonable amenities, as for example, the supply of wholesome drinking water or suitable medical and educational facilities or provision for canteens and creches in suitable cases, or provision for sufficient number of latrines and urinals separetely for males and females. Housing accommodation is also to be provided for every worker and standards and specifications of such housing accommodation will be prescribed after due consultation. The Bill also regulates the working hours of workers employed in the plantations.

3. Children under 12 are prohibited from employment in any plantation and State Governments are empowered to make rules regulating the payment of sickness or maternity benefits.

4. Necessary provision is made in the Bill for the appointment of a suitable inspecting, medical or other staff for the purposes of securing the implementation of the various provisions in the Bill."

13. A reading of the aforesaid statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that since the general provision of the Industrial Labour Legislation does not cater to the requirement of the conditions of life and employment in the plantation industry, as they were different from those in other industries, it became necessary to enact special legislation to regulate the conditions of life, including suitable medical and educational facilities, etc., for workers employed in the plantations. It is with this very object that the 1951 Act was enacted, extending to the whole of India,

except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Subsection (4) of Section 1 of 1951 Act reads as hereunder:-

"(4) It applies to the following plantations, that is to say,-

(a) to any land used or intended to be used for growing tea, coffee, rubber, [„cinchona or cardamom‟] which admeasures [„5 hectares‟] or more and in which [„fifteen‟] or more persons are employed on any day of the preceeding twelve months;

(b) to any land used or intended to be used for growing any other plant, which admeasures [„5 hectares‟] or more and in which [„fifteen‟) or more persons are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, if, after obtaining the approval of the Central Government, the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, so directs.] [„Explanation.- Where any piece of land for growing any plant reffered to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section admeasures less than 5 hectares and is contiguous to any other piece of land not being so used, but capable of being so used, and both such pieces of land are under the management of the same employer, then, for the purposes of this sub-

section, the piece of land first mentioned shall be deemed to be a plantation, if the total area of both such pieces of land admeasures 5 hectares or more.‟]"

14. Reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the Act 1951 is applicable to the petitioner's tea plantation. Section 10 which provides for the medical facilities reads as hereunder:-

"10. Medical facilities.- (1) In every plantation there shall be provided and maintained so as to be readily available such medical facilities for the workers [and their families] as may be prescribed by the State Government.

(2) If in any plantation medical facilities are not provided and maintained as required by sub-section (1) the [State Government upon a request by the Chief inspector] may cause to be provided and maintained therein such medical facilities, and recover the cost thereof from the defaulting employer.

(3) For the purposes of such recovery the Chief Inspector may certify the costs to be recovered to the collector, who may recover the amount as an arrear of land revenue."

15. Reading of the aforesaid section, it is clear that under the 1951 Act, every plantation is mandated to make medical facilities readily available for the workers and their families. Therefore, it is established that the management/petitioner No.2 is required under the provision of the 1951 Act to provide medical facilities not only to the respondent No.3 but also to his family members, including his wife. It further appears that such medical facilities are prescribed by the state government. It further appears that if any plantation fails to provide the medical facilities as required under subsection (1) of Section 10, the State Government upon a request by the Chief Inspector shall provide such medical facilities, which would later on be recovered from the defaulting employer, and for this purpose the Chief Inspector shall certify the cost to be recovered to the collector, who may recover the amount as an arrear of land revenue.

16. The issue at hand relates to cancer treatment. Let me now analyze whether cancer treatment is required to be

mandatorily provided by the management of a plantation industry under the provisions of the said 1951 Act. As noted above, under subsection (1) of Section 10 of the 1951 Act, the medical facilities that are required in every plantation to be provided readily available for the workers are required to be prescribed by the concerned state government. The State of Assam, in exercise of its powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 43 of the 1951 Act enacted the Rules 1956, wherein in Rule 35 to Rule 43, the medical treatment that every plantation is required to provide and maintain under Section 10 of 1951 Act is prescribed.

17. Rule 35 of the 1956 Rules provides two types of hospitals in plantations i.e., Garden Hospitals and Group Hospitals. Rule 35 of the 1956 Rules reads as hereunder:-

"35. Types of Hospitals.- There shall be two types of hospitals in plantations, viz, Garden Hospitals and Group Hospitals-

(i) Garden Hospitals will deal with out-patients, in-

patient not requiring any elaborate diagnosis and treatment, infectious cases, mid-wifery, simple pre- natal and post-natal care of infants and children and periodical inspection of workers.

(ii) Group Hospitals shall be capable of dealing efficiently with all types of cases normally encountered but will not be used for routine treatment. Admission to Group Hospitals shall be only on the recommendation of a garden hospital doctor."

18. Rule 36 of the 1956 Rules, which deal with Garden Hospitals, reads as hereunder:-

"36. Garden Hospitals. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub Rule (2), every employer shall be the 31st December, 1956, provide a garden hospital in his plantation according to the standard laid down in these rules.

(2) Every employer of plantations ordinarily employing less than 500 workers may, however, provide a garden hospital in his plantation according to the standard laid down in these rules or have a lien on the beds of a neighbouring garden or other hospital to the scale of 15 beds per 1,000 workers provided such hospital is situated within a distance of five kilometers from the garden Office.

(3) In case of lien on hospital beds, the plantation concerned shall provide and run for the benefit of the outpatients a dispensary of its own with at least two detention beds of the standard approved by the Chief Inspector of plantations under the immediate care and supervision of a full time qualified pharmacist assisted by a full time trained nurse-

cum-midwife and visited daily at regular hours by the qualified medical practitioner of the hospital on the beds of which it has a lien, patients requiring detention at the hospital and treatment therein being removed to it forthwith.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), a part of plantation under the name and style of an out-garden or division of the like employing not less then 200 workers, the residential areas of which are situated at a distance of two kilometers or more by road from the garden hospital, shall have dispensaries with two detention beds of the standard approved by the Chief Inspector of plantations under the immediate care of full time qualified pharmacist assisted by a full time trained midwife, but supervised and visited daily at regular hours by the qualified medical practitioner of the garden hospital for the treatment of out patients only, patients requiring detention at the hospital and treatment therein being removed to it forthwith.

(5) Each garden hospital shall be at lest under a whole time qualified medical practitioner assisted by at least one trained nurse, one trained midwive, one qualified pharmacist and one trained health assistant, all of whom shall be wholetime ones, and

all of whose services should be readily available during all hours.

(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-rules (3), (4) and (5) above medical and auxiliary personnel shall be appointed according to the following scale- Qualified medical practitioner- One per every 1,750 workers or part thereof.

Midwive- One per every 1,750 workers or part thereof, Trained nursing attendants- One per every 300 workers or part thereof.

Pharmacist- One per every, 1,750 workers or part thereof.

Health assistant- One per every 2,100 workers or part thereof)

(7)(a) A minimum of 15 beds shall be provided in every garden hospital per 1,000 workers served and each bed shall be allowed at least 60 sq. ft. of floor space.

(b) Every hospital shall be of sound permanent construction, with impermeable washable walls to a height of at least 5 feet on the inside with proper water supply and efficient sanitary arrangement.

(c) Every hospital shall have pure piped water supply and the wards, consulting room, operation theatre and dispensary shall each haye a water point over a suitable glazed sink.

(d) The following department shall be provided-

(i) Genral ward for males;

(ii) General ward for female;

(iii) Maternity ward with separate labour room;

(iv) Family Planning Centre;

(v) T.B. and V.D. Clinics;

(vi) Out-patients department (with sufficient waiting space for patients to wait under cover preferably situated in a separate block from general wards);

(vii) Consulting room so arranged that patients can be examined in privacy;

(viii) Minor operation and dressing room;

(ix) Dispensary and Drug Store;

(x) General Store;

(xi) Kitchen for cooking (fly-proofed)

("(xii) Separate small isolation wards for ordinary communicable diseases;

(xiii) A separate block at a reasonable distance from the general wards and the isolation wards for infections, T.B. patients with completely separate lavatories and baths exclusively for their use."]"

(e) In every hospital, transport facilities shall be provided for carrying patients to and from Group Hospitals free of charge by the employer.

["(f) In every plantation stretcher with bearers shall be maintained for carrying needy patients free of charge from the residential areas to the dispensary of the hospital, as the case may be.

(g) In every plantation having lien on the beds of a neighbouring garden or other hospital transport facilities shall be provided for carrying patients to and from such hospital free of charge by the employer"

19. Rule 37 of the 1956 Rules, which deals with Group Hospitals, reads as under: -

"37. Group Hospitals.- [„(1) Group hospitals shall established the employers of the plantations situated in the areas or sub-arcas as specified by the Chief Inspector of plantations within the time limit prescribed by him in consulation with the Medical Advisory Board at such places are considered central or otherwise suitable to the groups of the gardens concerned and share the cost of establishment, running, etc. of such hospitals.‟

(2) Plans for the establishment of Group Hospitals containing detail as regards their location and size, areas of plantations served, the number of workers employed thereon, etc., shall be appoved by the State Government.

(3) Every group Hospital shall have a minimum or 100 beds and there shall be at least 3 beds per 700 workers, every bed having 80 sq. ft. of floor space :

Provided that the State Government may fix a lesser number of beds to be provided in a Group Hospital, and exempt a group of plantation from providing a group Hospital, if it is satisfied that educate alternative arrangements exist for treatment of patients intended to be treated at a Group Hospital:

Provided further that no exemption shall be allowed without the previous approval of the Central Government.

(4) The hospitals shall be built according to such specifications as may be approved by the State Government.

(5) There shall be provision for piped supply of pure water, electricity, modern methods of sanitation and water flushed closets. Each ward, labour room, surgical dressing room, consulting room and dispensary shall have a water point over a suitable glazed sink:

Provided that with the approval of the State Government, suitable alternative arrangements may be made in regard to supply of pure water, electricity and other modern methods of sanitation. (6) Each Hospital shall have subject to the recommendation of the Advisory Board, provision for-

Operating Theatre block;

X-Ray block;

Physical therapy block;

Dental treatment block;

Labour room;

T. B. and V. D. clinics;

Consulting and examination rooms;

Clinical Laboratory, fully equipped;

Dispensary;

Administrative and office block;

Kitchen and Laundary blocks;

Lavatories and bathrooms;

Stores;

Mortuary and post-mortem room;

Out-patients block which should preferably be at some little distance from the wards.

Separate wards shall be provided for males, female, maternity cases and small isolated wards for infections diseases:

Provided that X-Ray, Physical Theraphy Blocks and Dental treatment block may not be provided if satisfactory arrangements are made by an employers to provide these facilities with some hospital approved by the Chief Inspector.

(7) (a) Every Group Hospital shall have such medical and other staff as may be specified by the State Government. All doctors in a Group Hospital shall be qualified medical practitioners.

(b) There shall be 15 nurses for a 100 bedded hospital of whom one shall be senior trained, 5 junior trained and 9 assistant nurses. Such classification may be made according to their qualifications and experience.

(8) A properly equipped ambulance shall be maintained in every Group Hospital"

20. Reading the aforesaid rules, it is clear that Garden Hospitals deal with outpatients, inpatients not requiring any

elaborative diagnosis and treatment, infectious case, midwifery, simple prenatal and postnatal care of infants and children, and periodical inspection of workers, while Group Hospitals deal with all types of cases normally encountered but will not be used for routine treatments. It further appears that in Group Hospitals the following provisions have to be provided: -

"Operating Theatre block;

X-Ray block;

Physical therapy block;

Dental treatment block;

Labour room;

T. B. and V. D. clinics;

Consulting and examination rooms;

Clinical Laboratory, fully equipped; Dispensary;

Administrative and office block;

Kitchen and Laundary blocks;

Lavatories and bathrooms;

Stores;

Mortuary and post-mortem room;

Out-patients block which should preferably be at some little distance from the wards."

21. Rule 38 of the 1956 Rules provides the list of equipment and drugs which is required to be maintained by a plantation, which reads as hereunder:-

"38. Equipment and drugs.- Every dispensary, garden hospital and group hospital shall maintain such equipment and drugs, etc., as may be specified by the State Government."

22. In terms of the aforesaid Rule 38 of 1956 Rules, the Government of Assam, Labour and Employment Department, vide notification dated 20.06.2005, prescribed the specified list of equipments that is to be maintained in tea garden hospitals and dispensaries in the State of Assam, which reads as hereunder:-

"NOTIFICATION GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT:LABOUR (RC) BRANCH ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR Dated, Dispur, 20th June, 2005.

No.GLR(RC).22/90/Pt.II/314- On the recommendation of the State Medical Advisory Board of Plantation workers, the Governor of Assam is pleased to specify under rule 38 of the Assam Plantations Rules, 1956 the equipments to be maintained in tea garden hospitals and dispensaries in the State of Assam as in the following-

LIST OF EQUIPMENTS TO BE MAINTAINED IN TEA GARDEN HOSPITALS AND DISPENSARIES ADEQUATE NUMBERS OF-

I. Furniture and Linens:

1. Examination

2. Tables and Chairs

3. Wooden/Iron rak

4. Almirah

5. Instrument Cabinet

6. Screen

7. Benches

8. Dressing table

9. Iron beds

10. Besides lockers

11. Baby cots

12. Cotton Foam mattresses

13. Hospital blanket (woolen: red)

14. Bed sheets

15. Pillows

16. Pillow covers

17. Mosquito net/Mosquito proofing of wards

18. Sarees for patients

19. Shirts and paijamas for Patients/Patients uniform.

20. Towels

21. Aprons

22. Baby towel for new born babies

23. Waterproof sheets

11. Sterilising Instruments and appliances:

1. Instrument Steriliser-Ordinary/Electrical

2. Electric heater

3. Sterilising Instrument holding forcep

III. Obsterical and Gynaecological:

1. Standard Obstetrical table with complete fittings

2. Episiotomy scissors

3. Foetoscope

4. Sym's Vaginal speculum

5. Mucous sucker

6. Dilator and Curette Set

7. Vulsellum

8. Uterine sound

9. Anterior Vaginal retractor

10. Spot light for labour room

IV. ENT & Dental Instruments:

1. ENT Diagonostic set

2. Tongue depressor

3. Foreign body hook

4. Nasal and aural dressing forcep

5. Nasal speculum

6. Aural syringe

7. Laryngeal mirror

8. Torch with Batteries

9. Tuning Fork

V. Surgical & Orthopaedic Instruments and appliances:

1. Kocher's Artery forceps

2. Artery forceps (Spencer Wells)

3. Mosquito Attery forceps

4. Dissecting forceps (Plain and toothed)

5. Scalpel/Bard parker Knife

6. Scissors

7. Sponge holding forceps

8. Needle holder

9. Tissue forceps

10. Sinus forceps

11. Retractor (small right angled)

12. O. T. Light

13. Suction machine

14. Stich cutting scissors

15. Dressing Drum

16. Wash basins with stand

17. Vicryl Catgut

18. Cotton, Gauge, Roll bandages

19. Adhesive plasters

20. Silk/Nylon/Cotton thread

21. Surgeon's Masks

22. Rubber/Disposable Gloves

23. Suturing needles

24. Male Urethral Catheters

25. Female Urethral Catheters

26. Foley's Catheter

27. Instrument Tray with lid

28. Traction set - Cervical and lum-ber

29. Cramer's wire splint

30. Thomas' splint (Adult & Child)

31. Airway Metallic/Plastic

VI. Laboratory Equipments, Reagents:

1. Microscope with fittings

2. Test tubes

3. Test tube rack

4. E.S.R. Set with stand

5. Sprit Lamp

6. Haemoglobinometer

7. Haemocytometer

8. Cover slip

9. Blood slides

10. Litmus paper (Red & Blue)

11. Benedict's Solution

12. Leishman's stain

13. N/10 Hydrochloric Acid

14. Diastix strip-Optional

15. 3.8% Solution Sodium Citrate

16. W.B.C. fluid

17. R.B.C fluid

18. Blood Grouping Kit

19. Glacial Acetic acid

20. Rapid Malaria Test Kit Optional

21. Pregnancy Diagnosis Kit

VII. Miscellaneous Equipments & Instruments:

1. Refrigerator

2. Oxygen Cylinder with fittings

3. Stretcher

4. Water filters

5. Saline stand

6. Enema cans

7. Bed pans

8. Male Urinals

9. Female Urinals

10. Feding cups

11. Kidney Trays

12. Basins

13. Spittons

14. Weighing machine (Adult)

15. Weighing machine (Baby)

16. Height measuring scale

17. Hot water bags

18. Breast pump

19. Blood pressure instruments

20. Stethoscope

21. Syringes of various sizes

22. Intramuscular/Intravenous needles

23. Ryle's Tube

24. Stomach Tube

25. Clinical Thermometer

26. Reflex hammer

27. Infra red light

28. I.V. Set

29. I.V. Canula

30. Scalp Vein Set

31. Venesection Set

32. X-Ray View Box

33. Dustbin

34. Bucket

VIII. Other items/structures required:

1. Incinerator."

23. Reading the aforesaid provisions, it is absolutely clear that the medical facilities that are required to be made readily available to the workers and their families are, inter alia, in relation to normal encountered illnesses and do not require any highly specialized treatments. Cancer undoubtedly is a special/distinct type of disease due to its unique characteristics, including the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells and its ability to spread to other parts of the body. In most cases a biopsy is the only way to definitively confirm a cancer diagnosis. It is apparent that biopsy procedures to detect cancer are not prescribed under the aforesaid provisions of the 1951 Act and 1956 Rules for the plantation to be maintained in their hospitals. That apart, cancer treatment involves highly sophisticated and specialized technologies and includes, inter alia surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy, along with targeted therapies, hormone therapy and clinical trials, as the case may require. The list of facilities required to be provided in the Group Hospitals as extracted above

does not include any such specialized facilities. That apart, the list of equipment and drugs as prescribed by the state government under Rule 38 of the 1956 Rules, which are required to be maintained by the tea garden hospitals and dispensaries in the State of Assam, also does not include any of the specialized equipment required for the treatment of cancer. In fact, it will not be out of place to mention that there are only few dedicated cancer hospitals, institutes, and centres in the entire State of Assam providing the treatment of cancer. It is thus unimaginable that tea garden hospitals can be said to provide such sophisticated and specialized cancer treatment requiring a specialist doctor at their Garden Hospitals for workers and their families. Be that as it may, there being no requirement in the 1951 Act, to provide cancer treatment, the question of providing the same by the plantation does not arise.

24. Thus, as a necessary corollary to the above discussion, it is abundantly evident that there is no requirement in law for the plantation to provide treatment for cancer in the garden hospital. Hence, the argument of Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, to the effect to read cancer treatment into the list of specified medical facilities provided under Section 10 of the said Act is totally fallacious inasmuch as if the statute does not provide a particular treatment in the list of specified treatments mandated for the plantations to follow, neither the tribunal nor this Court in exercise of certiorari

jurisdiction can add a new statutory obligation in the said 1951 Act and 1956 Rules. It is settled law that court or tribunal cannot rewrite or recast legislation. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishnan and anr., reported in 2022 9 SCC 186, wherein the Apex Court held as hereunder:-

"75. It is more than well settled that when the language of a statutory provision is plain and unambiguous, it is not permissible for the Court to add or subtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot rewrite or recast legislation. At the cost of repetition, we observe that if the argument as advanced by Shri Viswanathan is to be accepted, it will completely change the texture of the fabric of subsection (22A) of Section 19 of the Debt Recovery Act.

76. Though there are umpteen number of authorities to support this proposition, we do not wish to burden our judgment with them. Suffice it to refer to the judgment of three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Nasiruddin and others vs. Sita Ram Agarwal, (2003) 2 SCC 577 wherein this Court has held as under:

'37. The court's jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known that in a given case the court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot rewrite or recast legislation. It is also necessary to determine that there exists a presumption that the legislature has not used any superfluous words. It is well settled that the real intention of the legislation must be gathered from the

language used. It may be true that use of the expression 'shall or may' is not decisive for arriving at a finding as to whether the statute is directory or mandatory. But the intention of the legislature must be found out from the scheme of the Act. It is also equally well settled that when negative words are used the courts will presume that the intention of the legislature was that the provisions are mandatory in character."

25. In the instant case, there being no requirement for the plantation to provide cancer treatment under the provisions of the 1951 Act, the argument of the respondents, if accepted, could be to provide something that is not there in the 1951 Act. I am of the firm view that accepting the same would undoubtedly be usurpation of the role of the legislature, which would totally undermine the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances, and therefore the said contention cannot be accepted.

26. Pertinent at this juncture to refer to Rule 42 of 1956 Rules, which provides the consequences in case the plantation fails to provide and maintain the requisite medical facilities, which reads as hereunder:-

"42. Failure to provide and maintain medical Facilities as required in these rules.- (1) If any employer does not provide and maintain medical facilities as required in these rules to the satisfaction of the Chief Inspector, the latter will cause to be provided and maintained these facilities in the nearest garden hospital or dispensary, or in a District Board or other similar hospital, or if he considers necessary authorise either by general or special order medical treatment by any qualified medical practitioner and/or in any hospital that may be found convenient". The defaulting employer shall

be liable to pay the cost of such medical facilities including charges, if any, in respect of-

(a) a medical officer's visit to the plantation for the purpose of attendance on any sick worker or worker's;

(b) the maintenance of sick worker in a hospital/dispensary for each day's maintenance; and transport to and provided sick worker:

In addition to the above, the defaulting employer may be liable to pay a penalty as determined by the Chief Inspector of Plantations which may extend to a like amount.

["(2) If any group of plantations required under these rules to provide the facilities of a group hospital fail to do so, the State Government may, on the advice of the Medical Advisory Board, cause such facilities to be provided in such manner as may be recommended by the Board and recover the cost thereof by levies based on the hectair age under tea or on any other basis and such levies may be recovered, as herein after provided, as an arrear of land revenue.")

27. Reading the aforesaid rules, it appears that it is only in the event the plantation fails to provide and maintain any of the medical facilities as required under the 1951 Act and 1956 Rules to the satisfaction of the Chief Inspector, such facilities shall be provided in the nearest garden hospital or dispensary or in a district board or other similar hospital or by any qualified medical practitioner and/or in any hospital that may be found convenient, and the cost of such medical facilities shall have to be borne by the defaulting employer. Therefore, it is only in respect of those facilities that are required under the Act and Rules, failing which the

management is required to reimburse the expenses incurred in such medical treatment. Since there is no requirement for the plantation to provide or maintain treatment for cancer, failure to provide such treatment cannot make the plantation a defaulter under the provisions of the 1951 Act and 1956 Rules. It is worth mentioning that the argument of Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondents, to the effect that it is imperative for the petitioners to protect the health of the workmen and their families, there is no quarrel to the aforesaid contention; however, the same is of no support to the respondents inasmuch as it is nobody's case that the petitioners are not providing the medical facilities as specified under the Act 1951.

28. The relief sought in the instant writ petition is issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the said impugned Award dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal. The certiorari jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 is a limited jurisdiction. The writ court, while exercising powers under certiorari jurisdiction, cannot constitute itself into an appellate court over the inferior courts and tribunals. It is only in respect for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by the inferior courts and tribunals. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors., reported in AIR 1964 SC 477. Paragraph 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment reads as hereunder: -

"7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity, be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led

on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque Nagandra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam² and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh.

8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; but it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to

define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened."

29. Viewed thus, what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari has to be an error of law, but it must be such an error of law that can be regarded as one that is apparent on the face of the record. In other words, if the court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction, or on an obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or maybe even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons that are wrong in law, the same can be corrected by issuance of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

30. Turning now to the Award of the Industrial Tribunal under challenge, it appears that the Industrial Tribunal answered the questions No.1 and 2 of the reference in favour of the workman by holding that the workman is entitled to a medical bill of Rs.2,10,810/- for the cancer treatment of his wife outside the State of Assam.

31. Apt to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the said Award, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

"In the course of argument, the learned counsel for the workman has contended that as per the provision Section 10 of the Plantations Labour Act the wife of the workman is also entitled for medical facilities. At this stage, I would like to recapitulate Section 10 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 which are as follows:-

10. Medical facilities:

(1) In every plantation there shall be provided and maintained so as to be readily available such medical facilities for the workers (and their families) as may be prescribed by the state Government. (2) If any plantation medical facilities are not provided and maintained as required by Sub-section (1) the Chief Inspector may cause to be provided and maintained therein such medical facilities, and recover the cost thereof from the defaulting employer.

Thus from the above provision, it is clear that not only workers but their families are also entitled for medical facilities. Therefore I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the workman so far the medical facilities for the family of the workman is concerned.

Refuting the submission of learned counsel for the workman the learned counsel for the management has contended that as per rules prescribed under section 10 of the Plantation Labour Act there shall be two types of hospitals, i.e. garden hospital and group hospital. But the workman did not follow the procedure of reimbursement. Learned counsel for the management has further contended the wife of workman did not take treatment at B.Baruah Cancer Institute, Guwahati.

I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the management. Though there are two types of hospitals but the management has failed to show that treatment for cancer is available either in the garden hospital or in the group hospital. Due to seriousness of disease the patient went to

Mumbai for treatment. When the patient was referred to outside by GMCH was the prerogative of the patient where to go for treatment of Cancer disease That apart the I.D. Act is social legislation intended to protect the interest of workman employed in various industries. Non payment of bill to the workman, is violation principle of natural justice.

Thus from the above discussion it is evident that the workman had observed all the procedure for medical reimbursement. Despite following the procedure, the management of Kakodonga T.E. had refused to pay the medical bill Rs.2,10,810/- to Sri Anıl Saikia for treatment of his wife who was suffering from Cancer which was not justified. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 2,10,810/- from the management of Kakodonga Tea Estate."

32. Reading the above, it is clear that the Industrial Tribunal, by holding that the workman as per Section 10 of the 1951 Act is not only entitled to medical facilities for himself but also for his family members, has held that since the management/petitioner No.2 has failed to show that treatment for cancer is available either in the Garden Hospital or in the Group Hospital, the refusal thereof to pay the medical bill of the respondent No.3 for treatment of his wife, who was suffering from cancer, is not justified. It is thus apparent that the learned Industrial Tribunal has held the management/petitioner No.2 a defaulter under the said 1951 Act and 1956 Rules and accordingly, imposed the penalty of reimbursing the subject medical bill of the respondent No.3.

33. As noted above, the 1951 Act does not mandate the management of a plantation to provide treatment for cancer in the Garden Hospitals. There being no requirement in law for the management/petitioner No.2 to provide treatment for cancer in their hospital for their workers and families, the respondent No.3 has no legal right to claim reimbursement of medical bills in relation to the treatment of his wife, who was suffering from cancer. Therefore, in the instant case, the learned Tribunal, by imposing a penalty upon the management/petitioner No.2 for defaulting in providing cancer treatment, has gone to the extent of adding a new medical facility in the 1951 Act for the management/petitioner No.2., to provide, has exceeded its jurisdiction, and has transgressed into the role of the legislature. Any such Award passed by the Tribunal beyond its jurisdiction is patently illegal and cannot be enforced.

34. That being so, I am of the unhesitant view that the learned Industrial Tribunal has committed a jurisdictional error apparent on the face of the record in passing the impugned Award dated 07.06.2014, and therefore, the same is to be corrected by this court in exercise of its powers under the certiorari jurisdiction. Hence, I do so.

35. Accordingly, the Award dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in Reference Case No.3/2010 (which was published vide a Notification dated 31.07.2014) is hereby set aside and quashed.

36. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed and is disposed of.

37. Before closing the matter, this court expresses its appreciation and satisfaction to the assistance rendered by Mr. Rakesh Sarmah, learned Amicus Curiae, who was appointed by this court vide order dated 28.03.2025 to assist this court on the legal issue involved in the case at hand.

38. Return the trial court record.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant