Delhi District Court
Shri Sonu vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 September, 2009
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT NO. XVI
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
LCA NO.14/08
Shri Sonu
S/o Late Sh. Mahesh
C/o Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh Delhi Pradesh
P-2/624, Sultanpuri
Delhi. ...... Workman
VERSUS
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
through its Commissioner
Town Hall
Chandni Chowk
Delhi. ...... Management
Date of Institution of the Case : 4.02.08
Date on which the judgment has been reserved : 1.09.09
Date of delivery of judgment : 9.09.09
ORDER
1. The brief facts of the petition are that the mother of the workman was working as a Safari Karamchari at Circle no. 90 C.S.E/D.E.M.S department, Karol Bagh Zone, Delhi under the control of the management. It is further stated that the workman Sonu who is the son of the deceased employee is also dependent upon the said employee has undergone open heart surgery at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital on 23.10.02 and the said workman has borne the entire expenditure of the aforesaid medical treatment given by the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi for the applicant Sonu. It is further stated that as per the medical facility given by the management to the workman and other employee of the MCD. The said workman is entitled for reimbursement of all the medical bills given by the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital as well as Saroj Hospital, Dehi which 2 was expended on the open heart surgery of Mr. Sonu. It is further stated that the workman has submitted an application for reimbursement of said medical expenditure along with medical bills given by the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital as well as Saroj Hospital to the said management but the said management has failed to disburse the said medical bills. It is further stated that the workman has served a legal notice through her union with the request to disburse the medical bills but management has failed to disburse the same. It is, therefore, prayed to compute the amount of Rs. 2,29,756/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date on which the actual amount was due till the realization of money to the workman under section 33 C (2) of ID Act.
2. WS filed wherein it is stated that no demand notice has been served by the applicant and the present application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the present claim is not maintainable being bad in the present form as the same is not filed in prescribed Form K-3 Rule 62 (2) of the Central industrial Rules. Hence the present application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected. It is further stated that the claimant has not took prior permission from the management for taking the treatment in hospitals other than those being run by the management. The claimant never obtained any referral certificate. It is further denied that the claimant has completed all the requisite formalities with the management. The claimant has not submitted the bills of the medicines and treatment at Apollo Hospital duly verified by the hospital. It is further stated that the claimant has neither produced the Emergency Certificate from the said hospital or the referral certificate from the dispensary/Hospital run by the management. It is further stated that the reimbursement is not admissible on the ground that the age of the patient was 25 years as such the patient is not covered under the definition of dependent as per the CSMA Rules and secondly the patient had already been suffering from congenital Heart Disease i.e the disease which the patient was suffering since birth as such no emergency was their to take the patient to Apollo Hospital without getting the patient referred from the authorized medical office of the MCD. It is further stated that the medical reimbursement is neither any allowance 3 nor any benefit which is liable to be computed in terms of money as such the present application under section 33 C (2) of ID Act is not maintainable.
In reply on merits, it is denied that the workman is entitled to the reimbursement of all the medical bills given by the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital as well as Saroj Hospital.
3. Rejoinder not filed. After completion of the pleadings, the only issue was framed on 17.04.09 :
(i) Whether the claim filed by the workman against the
management is maintainable ?
Issue no. 1 was taken as preliminary issue.
4. Initially only Sonu filed the present petition when the case was fixed for order and application was filed to implead other legal heirs of Smt. Jai Pali. No reason has been given as to why previously these LR could not be impleaded. This shows that Sonu filed a legally defective petition. At this stage there is no such ground to implead LRs of deceased workman. Thereafter, case was adjourned for arguments on preliminary issue.
5. Arguments on preliminary issue on behalf of management heard. AR for management has stated that the claimant has not taken prior permission from the management for taking the treatment in hospitals other than those being run by the management. The claimant never obtained any referral certificate. It is further submitted that claimant has not submitted the bills of the medicines and treatment at Apollo Hospital duly verified by the hospital. It is further stated that the claimant has neither produced the Emergency Certificate from the said hospital. It is further stated that the age of the patient was 25 years as such the patient is not covered under the definition of dependent as per the CSMA Rules and the patient had already been suffering from congenital Heart Disease i.e the disease which the patient was suffering since birth as such no emergency was their to take the patient to Apollo Hospital without getting the patient referred from 4 the authorized medical office of the MCD. It is further stated that the medical reimbursement is neither any allowance nor any benefit which is liable to be computed in terms of money .
However, AR for workman appeared but has not addressed his final arguments.
6. I have seen the file and my inference is that that the issue be decided against the workman i.e. in the negative on the following grounds:
(i) In MCD Vs. Ganesh Razak, (1995)1 LLJ 395 (SC), it was held that :
"application under section 33 C (2) is not maintainable where the right was not earlier adjudicated or recognised and management and management disputes entitlement of the workman."
(ii) Medical reimbursement cannot be equitated with money.
(iii) Medical reimbursement is to be processed through office procedure and since there is an objection by the office, it cannot be said that workman is entitled to amount for which there is an objection and unless the objection is removed it cannot be held that workman has right to recover the amount. The proceedings u/s 33 C (2) is analogous to execution proceedings where right exists but the same is not quantified and the only procedure under section 33 C (2) is to quantifying the amount. If the right does not exists then the Labour court as no power under section 33 C (2). Whether there is a right or not, the labour court also cannot go into this question under proceedings under section 33 C (2). In the present petition, the claimant claims medical reimbursement. Medical reimbursement unless approved or sanctioned cannot be equated in terms of money.
(iv) At the time of arguments, AR for management has stated that workman had also not produced emergency certificate to the Medical Board of 5 MCD. In this regard in the WS, it is stated that patient had already been suffering from congenital Heart Disease i.e the disease which the patient was suffering since birth as such no emergency was their to take the patient to Apollo Hospital without getting the patient referred from the authorized medical office of the MCD.
7. In view of above reasons, the application of the claimant is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed holding that the claimant is not entitled to the claim.
Announced in the Open Court (DAYA PRAKASH)
on 9th September, 2009 Additional District & Session Judge
Presiding Officer labour Court XVI
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi.