JUDGMENT : 1. I have considered the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides and have perused the petition paper-book with their assistance. 2. The petitioner Municipal Corporation has put forth prayer clause 9(b) as under :- “This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Judgment and Order dated 08/11/2019, passed by the Ld.Member, Industrial Court No.1, Kolhapur, in Complaint (ULP) No.100 of 2014 and further be pleased to dismiss the Complaint (ULP) No.100 of 2014 fled by the Respondent.” 3. The Corporation has a medical reimbursement policy titled as ‘Kolhapur Municipal Corporation (Medical Benefits) Regulation 1982’ ( dksYgkiwj egkuxjikfydk ¼oS|dh; ifjp;kZ½ fofu;e 1982 ) framed under the a-Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Regulations, 1949 (Section 465(1)(l)). 4. The case before the Industrial Court put forth by the respondent in Complaint (ULP) No.100 of 2014 was, for seeking a declaration of unfair labour practices against the employer Corporation and for recovery of the medical bills to the tune of Rs.2,53,273/-, upon undergoing a heart surgery on 26/02/2013. 5. The relevant clauses of the reimbursement policy of 1982 are clauses 2(4), 2(8), 8(1), 8(3) and 8(4), which read as under :- 6. There is no dispute as regards the provisions of the reimbursement scheme reproduced above. 7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner draws my attention to the recommendation made by the Municipal Transport Workers Union, a recognized Union under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, which suggested to the Corporation that those employees who are not covered by the ESIC Act, be paid a monthly medical allowance. Such recommendation is dated 24/03/1998, signed by the General Secretary of the recognized Union. Based on the same, the Municipal Corporation passed a Resolution on 30/03/1998 bearing Resolution No.95, vide which it was resolved that those employees, who are not covered by the ESIC Act, would be entitled for a monthly medical allowance at the rate of Rs.20/- per month per employee. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits, on instructions, that he was not covered by the ESIC Act. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out from paragraph 6 of his written statement that the complainant was aware of the non- applicability of the medical reimbursement scheme, since Resolution No.95 dated 30/03/1998 had discontinued the reimbursement facility to those workers who were beyond the coverage of the ESI scheme. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out from paragraph 6 of his written statement that the complainant was aware of the non- applicability of the medical reimbursement scheme, since Resolution No.95 dated 30/03/1998 had discontinued the reimbursement facility to those workers who were beyond the coverage of the ESI scheme. The Industrial Court has recorded the submissions of the petitioner based on the pleadings in the written statement that medical allowance is paid to the employees who are not covered by the ESI scheme. So also, the medical bills submitted by the petitioner were photostat copies. 10. The complainant had fled the ULP complaint by invoking items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Industrial Court declared that the petitioner has indulged in unfair labour practices under item 9, which is “failure to implement a settlement agreement or award”. 11. There is no dispute that the complainant started feeling uneasy at around 4 p.m., after completing his duties at 12 noon, on 15/02/2013. His niece admitted him to the Apple Heart Hospital, Kadamwadi. He was in the Intensive Care Unit and a heart surgery was performed on 26/02/2013, which is after 11 days of his admission. There is no dispute that neither the complainant nor his relatives or the Union officer bearers approached the Corporation for seeking approval for his treatment in a private hospital not registered on the panel of the Corporation, as provided under clause 8(3) and 8(4) of the 1982 scheme, notwithstanding that the scheme was not applicable to the complainant because of Resolution No.95 dated 30/03/1998. 12. In the above backdrop, when the complainant himself did not comply with the requirements of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation (Medical Benefits) Regulation 1982, the employer could not have been guilty of commission of ULP under item 9. So also, the Industrial Court has concluded that though medical reimbursement has been abolished, the same is not applicable to the complainant, despite the fact that the Industrial Court has concluded in paragraph 8 that the ESI scheme was not applicable to the complainant. 13. Taking into account the above fact situation, it is obvious that the recognized Union itself asked for a monthly medical allowance in place of medical reimbursement. Resolution No.95 was accordingly passed by the Municipal Corporation, accepting the proposal of the recognized Union. 13. Taking into account the above fact situation, it is obvious that the recognized Union itself asked for a monthly medical allowance in place of medical reimbursement. Resolution No.95 was accordingly passed by the Municipal Corporation, accepting the proposal of the recognized Union. Thereafter, medical reimbursement was stopped in the Municipal Corporation from April 1998 onwards and yet the Industrial Court came to a conclusion that the Corporation is guilty of ULP under item 9 of Schedule IV. Consequentially, the Industrial Court, in clause 4 of it’s order, directed the petitioner to consider the representation and medical bills of the complainant and reimburse the same within two months, failing which interest at the rate of 8% per annum was granted. 14. I find that when the Industrial Court noted that Resolution No.95 was passed in pursuance to the proposal of a recognized Union and medical reimbursement was abolished from April 1998 onwards with regard to those employees who are not covered under ESIC and in lieu thereof Rs.20/- per month was made payable, there was no scope for the Industrial Court to conclude that the present complainant was entitled for medical reimbursement. There is nothing on record to suggest that any set of non-ESIC workers had been granted medical reimbursement. On these premises, the Industrial Court could not have concluded that the complainant was entitled for medical reimbursement. Moreover, not a single instance of medical reimbursement to non ESIC covered employee from April 1998, was proved before the Industrial Court. 15. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Order dated 08/11/2019 delivered by Industrial Court No.1, Kolhapur is quashed and set aside and complaint (ULP)No.100 of 2014 stands dismissed. Consequentially, Misc. Application (ULP) No.12 of 2021 fled by the respondent under Section 50 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, would not survive and stands disposed off. The Industrial Court No.1, Kolhapur shall issue a formal order of disposal of the said complaint.