Telangana High Court
The Singareni Collieries Company ... vs Koppula Malliah on 13 June, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL Nos. 520, 529 and 546 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid
cases, the facts of W.P.No.2275 of 2014 are being dealt with by this
Court which will resolve the controversy in all the three writ
appeals.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ
petitioner, namely Koppula Mallaiah, was an employee serving the
Singareni Collieries Company Limited (for short "the Company")
and he was working in the underground mines. The writ
petitioner/employee, on account of long duty hours of working
inside the mines, was suffering from various ailments. He
submitted an application to the Company for his medical
examination and sought for his discharge from service on medical
grounds. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that at the
relevant point of time, as per the statutory provisions governing the
compassionate appointment in the Company/employer and
discharge of employees on medical grounds provided for grant of
appointment to the legal heirs, in case an employee was discharged
on medical grounds, who was not fit to perform any job whether
underground operations or surface jobs, and who was having more
than two years of remaining service. The writ petitioner/employee
2
was subjected to medical examination on 10.10.2011. At the
relevant point of time, it was a In-House Medical Board. Meaning
thereby, the writ petitioner/employee was subjected to medical
examination by the Doctors of the Company and the Medical Board
opined that he is unfit for underground duties, however he is fit for
surface employment. The writ petitioner/employee, who was
medically unfit to perform any kind of job, immediately preferred
an appeal for re-examination before the Appellate Medical Board
constituted under the provisions of the Mines Rules, 1955 (for
short "the Rules').
Rules 29J, 29K, 29L and 29M of the Rules are reproduced as
under:-
"29J. Appeal for re-examination - (1) Where as a result of an
initial medical examination under clause (a), or of periodical
medical examination under clause (b) of rule 29B, a person has
been declared unfit for employment in mines or in particular
category of mines or in any specified operations in mine, he may,
within thirty days of the receipt by him of a copy of the Certificate
referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 29F, file an appeal with the
manager of the mine against the declaration aforesaid, and
request for a medical re-examination by an Appellate Medical
Board constituted under rule 29K.
(2)(a) The manager shall arrange to have the appellant
medically re-examined by the Appellate Medical Board within
thirty days of the receipt of the appeal, and shall give to the
Appellant fifteen days' prior notice of the medical re-examination
by the Appellate Medical Board in Form Q.
(b) A person, who for any reasonable cause, fails to
submit himself for a medical re-examination in accordance with
3
the notice given to him under clause (a), shall be given another
notice in Form R in similar manner.
(c) A person who has, without reasonable cause, fails to
submit himself for a medical re-examination in accordance with a
notice given to him under clause (b) shall cease to be in
employment at the mine or in a particular category of mines or in
any specified operations in mine, as the case may be, after the
expiry of thirty days from the last date notified for his medical re-
examination.
(3) In respect of every medical re-examination by the
Appellate Medical Board, the appellant shall pay such fees and
the medical examination shall be conducted in such manner as
may be determined by the Appellate Medical Board. In case the
Appellate Medical Board finds him fit for employment in mines,
the fees shall be reimbursed in full to the appellant by the owner
of the mine where he is employed.
29K. Constitution of Appellate Medical Board:- For the
purpose of medical re-examination on appeal, the Appellate
Medical Board shall consist of the following officers, namely :
(a) One duly qualified Medical Officer in the
employment of the Directorate-General of Mines
Safety who shall also act as the Convenor of the
Board.
(b) One Medical Officer duly qualified in allopathic
system of medicine to be nominated by the Chief
Inspector in consultation with the Welfare
Organisation set up by the Central Government for
the persons employed in the mine.
(c) One Medical Officer duly qualified in allopathic
system of medicine employed in the State or
Central Government or a Government undertaking
and not below the rank of Assistant Civil Surgeon.
Provided that if a Medical Officer under clause (b) or
clause (c) is not available, the Appellate Medical Board shall be
constituted with two persons only.
29L. Standard and report of medical re-examination
by the Appellate Medical Board:- The Appellate Medical Board
shall medically examine the appellant in accordance with the
4
standard laid down in Form P for initial medical examination of
workers already in employment as well as periodical medical
examination and in accordance with the standard laid down
Form P1 for initial medical examination of the persons to
employed and shall issue to the manager of the mine concerned
and to the appellant a medical certificate in Form S.
29M. Unfit persons not to be employed:- (1) Where, as
a result of an initial medical examination made under clause (a),
or of a periodical medical examination under clause (b) of rule
29B a person has been declared unfit for employment in mines or
in a particular category of mines or in any specified operations in
mine, he shall not be employed or continue to employed in mine
or in the category of mines or on the operations specified, after
the expiry of thirty days from the date of his medical examination
unless he has filed an appeal under sub rule (1) of rule 29J
against the declaration.
(2) Where the person concerned has filed an appeal under
sub-rule (1) of rule 29J, but has been declared by the Appellate
Medical Board, after a medical re-examination, to be unfit for
employment in mines or in a particular category of mines or on
any specified operations in mines, he shall not be employed or
continue to be employed in mine or in the category of mines or on
the operations specified, after the expiry of thirty days from the
date of his medical re-examination by the Appellate Medical
Board:
Provided that, if the Medical Officer carrying out the initial
medical examination under clause (a), or the periodical
examination under clause (b) of rule 29B, or the Appellate
Medical Board carrying out the medical re-examination of
persons already in employment is of the opinion that the
disability of the person examined is of such a nature and degree
that it will not seriously affect or interfere with the normal
discharge of his duties, it may recommend his continuation in
employment in the mine for a period not exceeding six months
during which such person may get his disability cured or
controlled and submit himself for another medical examination
and be declared fit."
5
The Appellate Medical Board gave a categorical finding that
the writ petitioner/employee was unfit for any kind of duty vide
proceedings dated 21.11.2013 and in spite of the fact that the
Appellate Medical Board gave a categorical finding, the
Company/employer issued an order dated 16.01.2014 directing
the writ petitioner/employee to report to duty. The writ
petitioner/employee preferred a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.2275 of
2014 challenging the same. The Company/employer, being
aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Medical Board, also
preferred a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.1164 of 2014 and the son of
the writ petitioner/employee also preferred a writ petition i.e.,
W.P.No.35334 of 2014 claiming compassionate appointment as per
the policy in vogue. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the
writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioner/employee and his son
and closed the writ petition preferred by the Company/employer.
Paragraph Nos.8 to 12 of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge are reproduced as under:-
"8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in
W.P.No.2275 of 2014 contended that the Appellate Medical
Board has not properly considered the Rules and
mechanically declared the petitioner as medically unfit.
9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered
view that the Appellate Medical Board vide proceedings dated
21.11.2013 declared the petitioner in W.P.No.2275 of 2014 as
medically unfit. In spite of the same, the respondents in
W.P.No.2275 of 2014 have issued proceedings dated
16.01.2014 directing the petitioner to
report to duty. But, within 14 days of issuance of proceedings
dated 16.01.2014, the petitioner in W.P.No.2275 of 2014
retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation. Therefore, no useful purpose would be
served if these writ petitions are adjudicated on merits.
However, ends of justice would be met if the respondents in
W.P.No.2275 of 2014 are directed to treat the petitioner
therein to have retired from service on medical invalidation
grounds and discharged accordingly, as he was not in a
position to report to duty.
10. So far as W.P.No.1164 of 2014 is concerned, as no interim
orders are granted as on today, the Appellate Medical Board's
report is holding the field, and at this point of time,
adjudicating the issue whether the Appellate Medical Board
has rightly issued the proceedings dated 21.11.2013 or not, is
too academic, since the petitioner in W.P.No.2275 of 2014 has
already retired from service. Therefore, no further orders are
required to be passed in this writ petition.
11. Insofar as W.P.No.35334 of 2014, since the petitioner in
this writ petition, who is the son of the petitioner in
W.P.No.2275 of 2014, submitted an application on
20.01.2014 requesting the respondents to consider his case
for appointment on compassionate grounds, ends of justice
would be met if appropriate direction be issued to the
respondents to consider the application of the petitioner
dated 20.01.2014 and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law.
12. Accordingly, W.P.No.2275 of 2014 is disposed of directing
the respondents to treat the petitioner to have retired from
service on medical grounds and discharged accordingly;
W.P.No.35334 of 2014 is disposed of directing
the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate grounds by duly taking into
account his application dated 20.01.2014 and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of
three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order; and in view of the orders passed in W.P.No.2275 of
2014, W.P.No.1164 of 2014 is closed. In order to give quietus
to these long pending writ petitions, this order is passed. It is
made clear that this order shall not be a precedent to any
other case. There shall be no order as to costs."
This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by
the learned Single Judge and the fact remains that the writ
petitioner/employee was first examined by the In-House Medical
Board having the officers who are directly under the employment of
the Company/employer, on 10.10.2011 and thereafter he was
examined by the Statutory Medical Board constituted with
qualified persons as provided under the Rules. The Appellate
Medical Board, in its findings dated 21.11.2013, has categorically
held that the writ petitioner/employee is unfit for any kind of job.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings of the
Appellate Medical Board have to be given effect from 10.10.2011
i.e. the date for the first time the writ petitioner/employee was
examined, as it is an independent Board and the question of
setting aside the findings of the Appellate Medical Board which has
conducted thorough examination of the writ petitioner/employee,
who was physically present, does not arise. W.P.No.1164 of 2014
has been filed by the Company/employer challenging the findings
of the Appellate Medical Board. The Appellate Medical Board is a
specialised body having experts and the question of interference in
respect of expert opinion by this Court does not arise. This Court
cannot substitute its views in respect of the finding given by the
experts of the Appellate Medical Board, as they are well equipped
and well qualified to give finding in respect of the writ
petitioner/employee after his medical examination. Therefore, in
the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was
justified in directing the Company/employer to grant appointment
to the son of the writ petitioner/employee, who was the writ
petitioner in W.P.No.35334 of 2014, as his father was certainly
having more than two years of service as on 10.10.2011 i.e., the
last date after which the writ petitioner/employee has not worked
in the Company on account of his medical condition.
Resultantly, all the writ appeals are dismissed. The
Company/employer is directed to comply with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge within a period of sixty days from today.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
___________________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
13.06.2022
JSU
