Judgment : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed for a declaration that denying the petitioners benefits payable under the Special Medical Assistance Scheme for the open heart surgery undergone by the petitioners father on 13.12.2005 is illegal and also directed the respondent to extend the benefit under the scheme to the petitioner and reimburse the medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner by paying Rs. 90,537/- with 12% interest per annum from the Labour Welfare Fund. 3. The esse of the petitioner is that he has joined in the services of the respondent as Assistant Tradesman on 15.11.1999 and working at the Sivakasi Branch of the respondent-Corporation as Junior Tradesman as on date. As per the settlement entered into between the trade unions of the employees and the management of the respondent under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 13.2.1999, a special medical assistance scheme to the benefit of the workmen was introduced. It is called the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Employees Family Medical Assistance Scheme under which an employee is entitled for the maximum upto Rs.1,00,000/- for undergoing five types of medical treatments either by himself or by his family members. Accordingly, the petitioner and other workmen have been paying Rs. 5/- per month from the monthly wages to the scheme as a subscription under Clause 79(3) of the settlement. The medical assistance given in respect of (i) Heart surgery (ii) Kidney Transplantation (iii) Ballooning heart operation (iv) Cancer surgery (v) Brain Tumor surgery. The petitioners father has suffered a chest pain and he underwent an open heart surgery on 13.12.2005 in the Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. In respect of the said surgery of his father, the petitioner had to spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and he has paid Rs. 96,537/- to the hospital alone. Since, the scheme is made applicable, the petitioner is entitled for the said amount, he has made representation on 29.12.2005 to the respondent along with the necessary certificates and the same has not been considered. 4. 1,00,000/- and he has paid Rs. 96,537/- to the hospital alone. Since, the scheme is made applicable, the petitioner is entitled for the said amount, he has made representation on 29.12.2005 to the respondent along with the necessary certificates and the same has not been considered. 4. In the circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition contending inter alia that the denial of the right is violative of Article 14 and the the refusal to implement the settlement constitutes an offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and also the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 6302 of 2003 dated 4.8.2005 under which this Court has extended the benefit of the scheme to the father of the petitioner therein who has undergone a special medical treatment. 5. The respondent has filed counter-affidavit. While admitting that, the Employees Medical Assistance Scheme was introduced under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the employees are entitled to get upto Rs. 1,00,000/- for the employees family which was as per the settlement dated 28.9.1995, subsequently, by another settlement dated 13.2.1999, it was agreed to extend the scheme by applying the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme to the employees of the State Transport Corporations. As per the G.O. 194 dated 16.3.1993 by which the Government has already amended the Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme wherein while defining the ‘family’ it is stated to include wife and children of the Government servant and in the case of unmarried Government servant it would include the dependant parents. According to the petitioner, he is a married man and therefore, as per the definition of the ‘family’ the petitioner is not entitled for the amount spent for his fathers treatment as per the scheme. 6. Mr. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court while interpreting the definition of the ‘family’ as per the G.O. Ms. 6. Mr. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court while interpreting the definition of the ‘family’ as per the G.O. Ms. No. 194 dated 16.3.1993 in the order of this Court dated 4.8.2005 passed in writ petition W.P. No. 6302 of 2003 has held that as per the Clause 2 of the scheme eventhough the word ‘family’ was used for the purpose of giving medical reimbursement the said word admittedly was not defined and it was in those circumstances, this Court has held that the term ‘family’ has to be understood with the attended circumstances and benefits granted to the employees. This Court has relied upon a Medical Assistance Card given by the respondent to its employees in which S.No. 5 contemplates the name of the father for the purpose of medical assistance. Further, this Court considering the fact that certain other benefits like free pass for travelling purpose in the Transport Corporation bus have been given to the father of the petitioner and in such circumstances, this Court has rejected the similar contentions raised by the respondent that the father of the petitioner cannot be included to the benefit under the scheme. It was in those circumstances, and also for other reasons stated therein, this Court has allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to reimburse the medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner therein in respect of his fathers treatment. 7. Relying upon the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the exact point which has been raised presently was already dealt with by this Court and therefore, the contentions of the respondent that the word ‘family’ does not include the father is no more available to the respondent. 8. On the other hand, Mr. R. Sivamanoharan, learned counsel appearing for the State Transport Corporation would submit that the matter involves the interpretation of the settlement entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and there is an alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act itself. In the presence of such alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act this writ petition cannot be entertained. 9. In the presence of such alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act this writ petition cannot be entertained. 9. The learned counsel in support of the said contention has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited and Another v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited and Another v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited and Another v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Employees Union 2005 (4) LLN 15 : 2006-I-LLJ-1135 where the Apex Court, while dealing with Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of the allowance to the employees working at the projects, has held that the matter involves essentially a question of fact and therefore, the proper remedy is to approach the Tribunal. 10. He has also relied upon another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in A. Annamalai v. General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division II Ltd., Dharmapuri A. Annamalai v. General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division II Ltd., Dharmapuri A. Annamalai v. General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem Division II Ltd., Dharmapuri 2005 (1) LLN 878 for the same proposition that when an alternative remedy is available, remedy under Article 226 cannot be a matter of course. He has also relied upon another judgment, of the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2001 (98) FJR 269 to show that the settlement entered into between the parties under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, does not create a public duty and no writ will lie. According to him, the matter involves a question of fact and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire records. 12. The main contention raised on behalf of the respondent while admitting that the Medical Assistance Scheme was introduced and implemented as per the Government order by referring to a G.O.Ms. No. 194 dated 16.3.1993 and the G.O. Ms. No. 100 dated 19.5.1998, is that the term ‘family’ as per the Rule 2 is stated to include the wife and children of the Government servant, and in the case of unmarried Government servant it would include the dependent parents alone. No. 194 dated 16.3.1993 and the G.O. Ms. No. 100 dated 19.5.1998, is that the term ‘family’ as per the Rule 2 is stated to include the wife and children of the Government servant, and in the case of unmarried Government servant it would include the dependent parents alone. In this case, inasmuch as the petitioner is married, father cannot be treated as a dependent parent and therefore, it will not be covered within the word ‘family’. 13. A reference to the Rule 2 would show as it is seen in G.O. No. 194 dated 16.3.1993 in the following terms: “The benefit under the scheme be extended to the family members of Government employees specified in Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Rules, 1991.” 14. The Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Rules, 1991 has amended the existing Rule 2 states as follows: “These rules shall extent to the whole of the State of Tamil Nadu. These rules shall apply to all categories of full time regular (Time-Scale) Government Employees of the Government of Tamil Nadu and their family members and to All India Service Officers serving in the State and to their family members.” 15. Therefore, a reading of the rule would show that the benefit is applicable to the employees of the family members. However, while enumerating the term ‘family’ the said rule further states as follows: “ Family” for the purpose of this scheme will include ‘wife and children’ of the Government servant. In case of female Government servant ‘Husband and Children’ and in the case of unmarried Government servant the dependent parents”. 16. A reference to the said paragraph shows that the term ‘family’ is not actually defined as pointed out by this Court earlier in the writ petition in W. P. No. 6302 of 2003 and the term is stated as only inclusive. Therefore, the term ‘family’ for the purpose of extension of benefits of the scheme has to be considered based on the conduct of the respondent-Corporation. However, in the said judgment relied upon by the petitioner which is in J. Annamalai v. Management of Metro Transport Corporation Limited, rep. Therefore, the term ‘family’ for the purpose of extension of benefits of the scheme has to be considered based on the conduct of the respondent-Corporation. However, in the said judgment relied upon by the petitioner which is in J. Annamalai v. Management of Metro Transport Corporation Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai-2, the petitioner has relied upon the medical assistance card and other benefits like free pass for traveling purpose for the family members and on the said fact this Court has come to the conclusion that such benefits have been conferred to the father of the petitioner therein. It was in those circumstances, this Court having considered that when other benefits have been extended to the father of a married employee of the State Transport Corporation, there was no reason to deny such benefit in respect of the medical reimbursement scheme also. However, in the present case, there is absolutely nothing on record or even in the affidavit filed by the petitioner stating that any other benefits has been conferred to the father of the petitioner. 17. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the said writ petition is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. As I stated earlier in that case relied upon by the petitioner on fact certain other benefits have been conferred to the father, and therefore, the Court, has come to a conclusion that denying the same for the medical reimbursement scheme will be discriminatory. 18. I am unable to come to such a conclusion since there is absolutely no record to show that such benefits have been conferred on the father of the petitioner from the respondent-Corporation. Moreover, the respondent-Corporation in the present circumstance, is different from the Transport Corporation in that case. 19. In view of such circumstances, I am of the considered view that as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the matter involves a question of fact as to whether the term ‘family’ has to be interpreted in the manner which is stated to the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme Rules, 1991 or as interpreted by this Court in W.P. No. 6302 of 2003 based on other available materials. 20. 20. There is one other circumstance namely that the petitioner is certainly entitled to have an alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, since, the matter relates to a question of fact for the purpose of deciding the term ‘family’ either by statue or arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act or as per the Government order in G.O.Ms. No. 194 (Finance Department) dated 16.3.1993. 21. Eventhough, the beneficial scheme has to be interpreted in a more liberal manner this Court is unable to come to such a conclusion in the present case for want of actual particulars and also for a decision on factual issues which involves the evidence and interpretation of various words under the settlement as also the Government order. 22. Inview of the same, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum under law, this writ petition stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs.