Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 343 (JHR)

Awadh Kumar Singh v. Central Coalfields Limited

2014-03-05

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
JUDGMENT R. Banumathi, C.J. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30.7.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No.1139 of 2006, in and by which refusal of the claim of the appellant for grant of IOD wages “Injury On Duty” for the period from 14.5.2003 to 28.2.2005 was upheld by the learned Single Judge. 2. The appellant was appointed on 2.11.1978 as Motor Mechanic and subsequently promoted to the post of Dumper Operator and he met with an accident on 6.3.2003. He was admitted to Regional Hospital, N.K.Area, Dakra, for treatment and thereafter he was referred to Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi, on 10.3.2003 and was treated from 10.3.2003 to 11.5.2003. After treatment, the Doctors advised the appellant to join duty on 12.5.2003 but not as a Dumper Operator. According to the appellant, on 14.5.2003 he joined duty in Rohini Project, N.K.Area, Dakra, but he was posted as Dumper Operator, to which he objected and he could not continue the work and he was referred to the hospital on 7/9.6.2003. On 13.1.2005, the appellant appeared before the Medical Board and by the opinion dated 15.1.2005, the Medical Board gave finding that the appellant be assigned alternative duty for three months and also that the appellant be referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore, for neurosurgical opinion and on his return, the Medical Board will review the fitness of the appellant. The Area Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, Dakra, examined the case of the appellant and on 13.6.2003 the Doctors reported that the appellant is unable to do duty as Dumper Operator and accordingly referred the appellant to Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi and the appellant was continuously under the treatment of the Doctors. Subsequently, on 13.1.2005, the appellant appeared before the Medical Board. By its opinion dated 15.1.2005, the Medical Board gave findings that the appellant should be given alternative duties for three months and also referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore, for neurological opinion and on return from CMC Vellore, be examined further for assessing fitness. 3. The case of the appellant is that he was not paid IOD wages from 14.5.2003 to 28.2.2005 and the appellant made representation on 24.6.2005 for payment of IOD wages for the period during which the appellant was under treatment in Gandhi Nagar Hospital. 3. The case of the appellant is that he was not paid IOD wages from 14.5.2003 to 28.2.2005 and the appellant made representation on 24.6.2005 for payment of IOD wages for the period during which the appellant was under treatment in Gandhi Nagar Hospital. By the letter dated 20.8.2005, the appellant was informed that he is not entitled to IOD wages as per rules because he has already been paid IOD wages for sixty days with effect from 10.3.2003 to 11.5.2003 and that he was declared duly fit by the Doctor and he has also resumed duty with effect from 14.5.2003 and performed duty upto31.5.2003. Being aggrieved by the refusal of payment of IOD wages for the said period, the appellant filed writ petition. 4. Learned Single Judge held that the appellant, after having been declared fit, has performed his duty for a fortnight and thereafter remained idle for the period from June, 2003 to February, 2005. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant has been paid his bills for medical treatment as per the policy of the respondents and in such circumstances, the respondents’ refusal of grant of IOD wages for the period from 14.5.2003 to 28.2.2005 does not suffer from any error of fact and law. 5. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge did not keep in view that the accident took place on 6.3.2003 and thereafter the appellant was continuously taking treatment and as such, he is entitled to the wages under IOD Scheme. It was further contended that the Medical Board, by its opinion dated 15.1.2005, opined that the appellant be assigned alternate duties for three months and inspite of his representation, the respondents had not provided alternative work to the appellant, which aspect was not kept in view by the learned Single Judge. To substantiate his contention that the appellant was continuously under treatment from June, 2003, the appellant, in this appeal, has also produced entire medical card. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, submitted that the appellant was allowed to resume his duty on 14.5.2003, which he continued to perform till 31.5.2003 and subsequent thereto, the appellant refused to perform his duty without any reason and during the said period, the appellant was never under treatment of any Medical Officer of the Company. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, submitted that the appellant was allowed to resume his duty on 14.5.2003, which he continued to perform till 31.5.2003 and subsequent thereto, the appellant refused to perform his duty without any reason and during the said period, the appellant was never under treatment of any Medical Officer of the Company. It was further submitted that IOD Wage Committee had been constituted, which examined the case of the appellant and the Committee opined that the appellant not conforming with the provisions and therefore, IOD wages had not been paid to the appellant. It was further submitted that the claim of the appellant that he was not capable to drive Dumper was not confirmed by any medical opinion and therefore, the claim of the appellant for IOD wages from 14.5.2003 to 28.2.2005 was not paid and the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ application. 7. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials on record. 8. After the accident on 6.3.2003, the appellant had been taken in Regional Hospital, N.K.Area, Dakra, and thereafter referred to Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi, a Unit of CCL where he had taken treatment from 10.3.2003 till 11th May, 2003. After the treatment, the appellant joined duty on 14.5.2003 in Rohini Project, N.K.Area, Dakra. Contrary to the advice of the Doctor, the appellant was forced to operate Dumper and thereafter the appellant, on 5.6.2003 through his letter, requested the Staff Officer, which was forwarded to the Mines Manager, Rohini Project, to look into the matter and to grant him some suitable work. The appellant was referred to the Area Medical Officer, Regional Hospital, where he was examined and the appellant was also examined in Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi and the appellant was under treatment in Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi, till 30.6.2003 and discharged on 30.6.2003 and the Doctors advised him complete rest for three months. The fact that the appellant had taken treatment in Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi, from 19.6.2003 till 30.6.2003 is seen from the endorsements of the Medical Card made on 24.7.2003. 9. The case of the appellant is that he was examined from time to time by the Doctors at Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi. The fact that the appellant had taken treatment in Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi, from 19.6.2003 till 30.6.2003 is seen from the endorsements of the Medical Card made on 24.7.2003. 9. The case of the appellant is that he was examined from time to time by the Doctors at Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi. As seen from the various entries in the medical card, the appellant was continuously taking treatment in Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi. In the meanwhile, the appellant requested for payment of IOD wages which was refused and the same was communicated by the refusal letter dated27.8.2004. On 5.1.2005, the Medical Board was constituted, which examined the appellant. By its opinion dated 15.1.2005, the Medical Board opined that (i) alternative duties be given to the appellant for three months; (ii) referring the appellant to CMC Hospital, Vellore for neurological surgical opinion and (iii) on return from CMC Hospital, Vellore, Medical Board may consider the opinion of CMC Hospital, Vellore and normal fitness. The said opinion of the Medical Board is also endorsed in the medical card of the appellant on 31.1.2005. 10. After his examination by the Medical Board, the appellant filed an application on 5.2.2005 and 17.2.2005 before the respondents to provide him alternative employment. According to the appellant, the Management orally informed the appellant that alternative employment will be given to him on his return from CMC Hospital, Vellore. On 31.3.2005, the appellant was referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore, where he had taken treatment from13.5.2005 till 24.5.2005. 11. It is a matter of record that the appellant had continuously taken the treatment. We have perused the medical card filed by the appellant. By perusal of the medical card, it is seen that the appellant was continuously under treatment right from July, 2003.It is stated that because of spinal injury, the appellant could not operate Dumper. The Medical Board, by its opinion dated 15.1.2005, also opined that the appellant be given alternative duty for three months. Because of the injuries sustained and the nature of the complication and continuous medical treatment, the appellant could not perform his normal duty. The responsibility was cast upon the Management to provide him alternative employment. In pursuance of the opinion of the Medical Board, the Management has not provided alternative duty to the appellant. 12. Because of the injuries sustained and the nature of the complication and continuous medical treatment, the appellant could not perform his normal duty. The responsibility was cast upon the Management to provide him alternative employment. In pursuance of the opinion of the Medical Board, the Management has not provided alternative duty to the appellant. 12. Considering the medical card produced by the appellant which clearly shows the continuous treatment of the appellant at Gandhi Nagar Hospital, Ranchi, from July, 2003 till he was referred to CMC Hospital, Vellore, it is evident that the appellant was suffering from illness due to which he could not perform his normal duty. We are of the view that the IOD Committee, which was constituted for examining the case of the appellant, does not seem to have kept in view the various entries made in the medical card of the appellant and the appellant’s inability to perform the normal duties. The learned Single Judge was also not right in observing that appellant was declared fit for performing his duty and thereafter he remained idle and that the Management was right in declining to grant IOD wages. Having regard to the entries in the Medical Card and the opinion of the Medical Board, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to IOD wages for the period from 14.5.2003 to 28.2.2005 and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 13. The order dated 30.7.2013 passed in W.P(S) No.1139/2006 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. It is informed that the appellant has superannuated. The respondents are directed to pay the IOD wages from 14.5.2003 to 28.2.2005 along with statutory interest to the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.