AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner Hospital has come forward to challenge an order passed by the first Respondent Labour Court, Vellore in C.P. No. 286 of 2000 dated 30.06.2003. By the impugned order, the Labour Court computed a sum ofRs. 3,35,620/-as due and payable by the PetitionerHospital as well as the second Respondent.
The writ petition was admitted on 13.11.2003. Pending the writ petition, this Court initially orderednotice in the application for interim stay.Subsequently, when the matter came up on 25.03.2004, thisCourt granted an interim stay. This was on the groundthat in the I.D. No. 361 of 1989, the present Petitionerwas not arrayed as party and the dispute was allowed asagainst the second Respondent. But the present C.P. wasordered against the Petitioner Hospital and hence, staywas granted.
The Petitioner also filed an additional typed set containing documents relating to ID and CP.
Heard the arguments of Mr. S.Ravindran ofM/S.T.S.Gopalan and Company, counsel for the Petitioner andMr. C.P.Sivamohan, learned Counsel appearing for the thirdRespondent.
It is seen from the records that the third Respondent raised a dispute with reference to his non�employment in the Petitioner Hospital. Initially, theState Government by an order dated 16.04.1985 refused torefer the dispute. Thereafter, the third Respondentfiled a re-consideration petition on 08.09.1996. TheGovernment on re-considering the earlier stand issuedG.O.Ms. No. 1414 Labour Department, dated 06.07.1987 andreferred the dispute for adjudication. In the reference,it was stated that whether the non-employment of thethird Respondent was justified, if not, to what relief,he was entitled to.
The said reference was taken on file by the IIAdditional Labour Court as I.D. No. 361 of 1989 and noticewas issued to the parties. The third Respondent hadfiled a claim statement dated 19.07.1990. In the claimstatement, he had made the two Respondents viz., TheBethesda Hospital, Ambur represented by its Director,I.E.L.C., Leprosy Project and secondly, the Secretaryand Convener in Board for Healing Ministry, I.E.L.C.,Tripthi. The second Respondent herein, who was also thesecond Respondent in the I.D. was set ex parte and an exparte Award was passed on 24.08.1994.
Based on the said Award directing reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service given to the third Respondent, he filed a claim petition u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for short I.D.Act) before the Labour Court,Vellore. The said claim petition was taken on file asC.P. No. 286 of 2000 and notice was issued to the same Respondents, who were Respondents in the I.D. In the claim petition, the third Respondent claimed a sum ofRs. 3,45,320/-including Salary, Travelling Allowance, Therapy Allowance etc.,
A counter statement was filed on behalf of Bethesda Hospital Society, who is the present Petitioner.In the counter statement, it was specifically contended that the hospital was formed and registered and the New Bethesda Hospital was started by Dr. A.S.Fenn and Dr.J.K.Joel Nesaraj as Director and Medical Superintendent respectively. The earlier case filed by the third Respondent in C.P. No. 286 of 1996 was dismissed as against those two individuals. The present claimstatement was not maintainable. The present Management of the Hospital was formed only in the year 1996 and the Bethesda Hospital I.E.L.C. Leprosy Project did not exist any more and it was closed during 1984. The present hospital was not bound by the Award.
Before the Labour Court, the third Respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 7 documents asExs.P.1 to P.7. On the side of the Petitioner Hospital,Dr.J.K.Joel Nesaraj was examined as R.W.1 and on their side, 11 documents were filed and marked as Exs.R.1 to Rule 11. Ex.R.10 is the resolution passed by India Evangelical Lutheran Church handing over the premises of the defunct Bethesda Hospital in Ambur together with all the buildings, fixtures, staff quarters and all equipment, apparatus and machinery to the United Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India for a period of five years. After the expiry of the period of license, it has to be returned to the IELC. Thereafter, on28.01.1986, an agreement was entered into between India IELC and United Evangelical Lutheran Church in India(UELCI) for handing over the property to that organisation. That document was marked as Ex.R.9 before the Labour Court.
Even though the resolution and the subsequent lease agreement were signed after the non-employment of the third Respondent, but when a reference was made in the year 1987, the third Respondent had filed a claimstatement in the I.D against defunct Management and got
an ex parte Award. It was only when he filed CP. No. 286 of2000, he attempted to link the present Management with the hospital and made a claim statement as against the present Management.
The third Respondent in his cross examination had stated that he had worked in Leprosy Project in IELCas a part-time Medical Worker and after the project was over, he was stopped from work. He denied that he was aware of the transfer of Management from IELC Church to UELC Management. He also feigned ignorance about the Leprosy Project not continued from the year 1986. At the time of his termination, Dr. J.K.Joel Nesaraj was the Medical Superintendent and he had terminated the service of the third Respondent. He also admitted his working in Women''s Industrial School, Palamaneri as Office Manager since 2001 November. He also admitted that new Bethesda Hospital was started in the year 1995.
Dr. J.K.Joel Nesaraj, who was an acting Director was examined as R.W.1. He had categorically stated that after the New Society took over the hospital in the year 1995 neither the IELC nor individuals were running the hospital and there is No. leprosy project in the hospital. In the old hospital, there were 200 employees and R.W.1 was also one of them. In the present Management, only 40 persons were employed. With reference to those 200 persons, compensation has been paid and after receiving the compensation, they had joined a new hospital. Before the closure, the hospital was only running the leprosy project. The new Management had not taken over the leprosy project. Leprosy Project was carried on with the aid received from German Agency and from out of the contribution, salary will be paid to the workmen. The entire building and structure were in the hands of IELC and they have paid compensation to all the workers.
Notwithstanding the evidence let in by the parties, the Labour Court held that the agreement between the earlier IELC and UELCI was only for a period of five years and there was No. documentary evidence to show that it was renewed thereafter. Since the Petitioner is now running the hospital in the same building with other infrastructure, they cannot plead non-involvement. The hospital was run by UELCI and IELC and there was No. proof forthcoming with reference to the closure of the Leprosy Project and the present institution is not a new institution and it was a continuation of old institution.
It is not clear as to how the Labour Court could render a finding especially when the thirdRespondent in his cross examination himself admitted the closure of the Leprosy Project and the earlier hospital. The present Petitioner has clearly proved that the present hospital has got nothing to do with the previous establishment. In the absence of the earlier Award linking the present Management, the Labour Court cannot render a finding that both establishment were one and the same and that the present Petitioner will have to pay the amount due to the third Respondent. Inasmuch as the thirdRespondent had claimed relief in the ID only against thesecond Respondent IELC, it ought to have proceeded only against IELC and not against the present Hospital. Thethird Respondent has failed to prove that the present Petitioner is the employer and that he is still entitled to have any claim against the present Petitioner. In fact in his evidence, he had admitted that he was working part-time in Leprosy Project and it was also closed and currently, he is also employed in some other place as Office Manager. The Labour Court in a petition u/s 33-C(2) of the I.D.Act can compute amounts on the basis of a pre-existing right and it cannot claim a new right for the third Respondent. The present Petitionerwas not even a party to the earlier ID.
In the light of the above, the claim made by the third Respondent against the Petitioner is misconceived. The writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court stands set aside. However, there will be No. order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.