AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner-M/s BCCL is aggrieved of award dated 17.12.2005 passed in P.L Case No.1256 of 2004 by which claim for payment of I.O.D
wages for the period between 16.12.2000 to 23.05.2001 and other allowances has been allowed.
Briefly stated, the employee-Madhusudan Paul during course of his underground duty sustained injuries on his right shoulder on 12.04.2000. He was
taken to the Project Hospital for treatment, where the Assistant Medical Officer referred him to the Central Hospital, Saraidhela, Dhanbad for further
treatment. There he was admitted as indoor patient and subsequently, on 27.05.2000 he was referred to AIIMS at New Delhi for specialized
treatment. His subsequent visit to AIIMS for final check-up was approved by the competent authority. Pleading that he was directed by the Project
Officer, Munidih Colliery to appear before the Medical Board on 08.05.2001 the respondent-employee claimed I.O.D wages from 13.04.2000 to
23.05.2001. The respondent has superannuated from the service w.e.f 31.08.2003.
The pre-litigation application filed by the respondent has been registered as P.L Case No.1256 of 2004. During pendency of this case, the applicant
and the counsel for M/s BCCL inspected records of Munidih Area Hospital from November, 2000. It is pleaded by the petitioner-M/s BCCL that the
records in the said hospital revealed that the employee was examined by the doctor on 28.11.2000 and he was declared fit to resume his duty from
29.11.2000.
Contending that merely observing that the employer has failed to produce evidence on non-production of documents by the employee claim of the
employee cannot be allowed, Sri Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat constituted
under section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 has exercised a jurisdiction which is not vested in it when it has allowed the
unsubstantiated claim for payment of I.O.D wages to the employee.
As against the above, supporting the impugned order dated 17.12.2005, Sri S.N. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that once it is
found that the employee was directed to appear before the Medical Board on 21.05.2001 and he was allowed to join duty from 24.05.2001 the
employee becomes entitled for I.O.D wages at least till that time.
In its order dated 17.12.2005 the Permanent Lok Adalat has recorded that after M/s BCCL refused to admit the claim of the employee, it has
proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
It is admitted by the parties that during course of his employment on 12.04.2000 the respondent suffered injuries on his right shoulder and he was
admitted for treatment in the hospital on the same day. In his application dated 08.05.2001 the respondent himself has admitted that from Central
Hospital, Dhanbad where he was admitted as indoor patient he was released after one day; he was advised to come to the hospital every day
thereafter for treatment. The employer-M/s BCCL has paid I.O.D wages to the respondent for the period between 13.04.2000 to 15.12.2000. May be
the records of Munidih Area Hospital would reveal that the employee was declared fit on 28.11.2000, however he was paid I.O.D wages till
15.12.2000,but this discrepancy would not validate the impugned award. It stands admitted by the respondent that he did not mark his attendance in
the hospital after November, 2000 nor did he produce any document of his treatment. The direction by the Area Project Officer, Munidih Colliery to
the respondent to appear before the Medical Board on 21.05.2001 would not lead to an inference that till that time the petitioner was not fit to resume
his duty. In his application dated 08.05.2001 the respondent has not specified the period for which he is entitled for I.O.D wages. The Permanent Lok
Adalat has besides I.O.D wages granted other allowances to the respondent for the period 16.12.2000 to 23.05.2001; one of the claims is for
underground allowances which is paid only when the employee has discharged his duty in the underground mines. A reading of the impugned order
dated 17.12.2005 would disclose that claim of the employee has been allowed primarily by raising an adverse inference against the employer-M/s
BCCL on the ground that it has failed to produce evidence that the employee has not produced document of his medical treatment. Evidently, such
adverse inference cannot be drawn against the employer. It was for the employee in the first instance to produce documents of his treatment which is
required under NCWA for grant of I.O.D wages to an employee who has suffered mining injuries. An adverse inference if at all can be raised, it has
to be raised against the employee who has failed to produce documents of his treatment.
In the above facts, finding serious infirmity in the impugned award dated 17.12.2005, it is set-aside. The writ petition is allowed.
Â
Â