Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5180/2014 on 19 May, 2025
GAHC010016182014
2025:GAU-AS:6189
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) No.5180/2014
1. M/s Kakadonga Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.
A company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its registered office at K.B.
Road, Jorhat-785001, District- Jorhat.
2. The Management of Kakadonga Tea Estate,
P.O. Gotonga, District- Jorhat.
........Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam,
Represented by the Commissioner and
Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Labour and Employment Department, Dispur,
Guwahati- 781006
2. The Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha,
Jorhat Circle, P.O.- Jorhat, District- Jorhat,
Assam, PIN- 785001
Page 1 of 36
3. Shri Anil Saikia,
S/o Late Padma Nath Saikia,
Village and P.O.- Dhekia-Khowa,
District- Jorhat, Assam, PIN- 785113.
.......Respondents.
-BEFORE-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. N. Deka.
Advocate for respondents : Ms. A. Bhattacharyya.
: Mr. R. Sarmah, Amicus Curiae.
Date of hearing : 08.04.2025
Date of Judgment : 19.05.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the
petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. Rakesh
Sarmah, learned Amicus Curiae.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ in
the nature of certiorari for setting aside and quashing the
Award dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Industrial
Page 2 of 36
Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in Reference Case No.3/2010 (which
was published vide a Notification dated 31.07.2014).
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent
No.3 was an employee of the tea estate owned by the
petitioner No.1. In the year 2008, the wife of the
respondent No.3 was brought to the Garden Hospital of the
said tea estate, where she was given treatment and
thereafter was taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital, from where
she was referred to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital
for treatment. Thereafter, the wife of the respondent No.3
was diagnosed with cancer, and she was taken to a private
nursing home in Jorhat, and from there she was taken to
Mumbai for treatment. After returning from Mumbai, the
respondent No.3 submitted a bill of Rs.2,10,810/- to the
petitioner No.2 i.e. the management of the said tea estate
for reimbursement. However, the petitioner No.2 declined to
reimburse the same. Situated thus, the respondent No.3
raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for
adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in
Reference Case No.3/2010. In the aforesaid reference, the
learned Industrial Tribunal by order dated 07.06.2014, held
that the petitioners are liable to reimburse the subject
medical bill of the respondent No.3. Against the aforesaid
Award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, the
present writ petition has been filed.
Page 3 of 36
4. Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submits that under the provisions of the Plantations Labour
Act, 1951 & The Assam Plantations Labour Rules, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1951 Act’ and ‘1956 Rules’
respectively), the management is only required to provide
medical facilities in the Garden Hospitals as prescribed by
the aforesaid Act and Rules and the same does not include
treatment of cancer or any such serious diseases. He further
submits that the respondent No.3 did not come within the
purview of the term ‘worker’ as per Section 2(k) of the 1951
Act and as such, the reimbursement bill in respect of the
medical treatment of the wife of the respondent No.3 is not
maintainable. He further submits that, however, the wife of
the respondent No.3 was given treatment in the Garden
Hospital as a goodwill gesture, and when she could not be
treated there, she was taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital,
wherefrom she was referred to Guwahati Medical College
and Hospital.
5. Per contra, Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for
the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that it is the
fundamental right of the worker to health and medical aid
during service. She further submits that it is imperative for
the petitioner tea estate, to protect the health of the
workmen and their families and to take all such actions that
will promote the health, strength, and vigour of the
workmen and their families during the period of
employment, and denial thereof amounts to violation of the
Page 4 of 36
right of the workman guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In support of the said submission, she
relies upon the following decisions:-
i) Consumer Education & Research Centre and
Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1995) 3
SCC 42;
(ii) Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported
in (1996) 2 SCC 336;
(iii) Runu Raj Kumari Phukan Vs. State of Assam
& Ors., reported in (2000) 3 GLT 27;
(iv) Soram Nabakumar Vs. State of Manipur &
Ors., reported in (2015) 3 GLT(MN) 722;
(v) Samurailatpam Sarojini Devi Vs. State of
Manipur & Ors., reported in 2017 2 GLT (MN) 88.
6. She further submits that whenever a reference is
made by a government to an Industrial Tribunal, it has to be
presumed that there is a genuine industrial dispute between
the parties requiring adjudication. She accordingly submits
that this Court while judicially reviewing the Award passed
by the Industrial Tribunal should as far as possible, attempt
to sustain the Award and refrain from picking holes here
and there in the Awards on trivial points and ultimately
frustrating the entire adjudication process before the
tribunals by striking down Awards on hyper-technical
grounds. She further submits that in reference cases, the
Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide questions
Page 5 of 36
that are incidental to the reference. In support of the
aforesaid submission, she relies upon the following decisions
of the Apex Court: –
i) Calcutta Port Shramik Union Vs. Calcutta River
Transport Association and Ors., reported in 1988
(Supp.) SCC 768;
(ii) Sadhu Ram Vs. Dehli Transport Corporation,
reported in (1983) 4 SCC 156.
7. Mr. Rakesh Sarmah, learned Amicus Curiae, submits
that the Industrial Tribunal derives its jurisdiction to
adjudicate the dispute from the order of reference and does
not extend beyond the terms thereof. He further submits
that in the event an Award passed by the learned Industrial
Tribunal is found to be in excess of its jurisdiction, the same
can be corrected by the High Court by exercising its
certiorari jurisdiction. He further submits that the tribunal
cannot pass an Award contrary to the provisions of law. In
view of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the
following decisions: –
(i) State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Om
Prakash Sharma, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 123;
(ii) State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Amrendra Kumar
Mishra, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 561;
Page 6 of 36
(iii) Workmen of the Hercules Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Hercules Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta, reported
in 1960 SCC OnLine SC 339;
(iv) N.S. Giri Vs. Corporation of City of Mangalore
and Ors., reported in (1999) 4 SCC 697;
(v) Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 192;
(vi) Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and
Ors., reported in 1963 SCC OnLine SC 24.
8. I have given my prudent consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the
contending parties including the learned Amicus Curiae and
also perused the material available on record. I have also
considered the case laws cited at the bar.
9. It appears that upon the management/petitioner No.2
refusing to reimburse the medical bill in relation to the
treatment of the wife of the respondent No.3 at a hospital in
Mumbai, the respondent No.3 raised a dispute, which after
conciliation having failed, the Under Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Labour and Employment
Department, vide notification dated 13.07.2010, referred the
same to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘1947 Act’) for adjudicating the said dispute. The
reference reads as hereunder:-
Page 7 of 36
“1. Whether the management of the Kakodonga Tea
Estate was justified in refusing to pay Medical Bill
Rs.2,10,810 (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand
Eight Hundred and Ten) only to Shri Anil Saikia for
his wife suffering from Cancer even on humanitarian
consideration?
2. If yes, what relief the workman is entitled in lieu
thereof?
3. If not, whether the workman is entitled for simple
interest on the Billed amount of Rs.2,10,810/-
4. Any other relief?”
10. A perusal of the aforesaid reference indicates that the
dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal is, inter
alia, whether the management/petitioner No.2 was justified
in refusing to pay the medical bill to respondent No.3 in
relation to his wife’s cancer treatment.
11. The short question arising in this writ petition is
therefore whether the management/petitioner No.2 is
required in law to provide cancer treatment in their Garden
Hospitals for the workers employed in the plantation and
their families thereof; and in the event such facilities are not
available, whether the expenses incurred by such worker in
relation to such treatment availed outside the Garden
Hospital are required to be reimbursed.
12. In order to answer the aforesaid question, it is apt to
first ascertain whether there is any law that creates a
mandatory obligation upon the petitioners to provide for
Page 8 of 36
cancer treatment for their workers and their families
thereof. Pertinent that since there was no comprehensive
legislation regulating the condition of the lives of the labour
employed in the plantation industry, the Plantation Labour
Bill was introduced for the welfare of labour employed in
plantations on the report of the labour investigation
committee, which was passed by both houses of Parliament
and received the assent of the President on 02.11.1951.
This Act is called the 1951 Act, which came into force on
01.04.1954. Apt to refer to the statement of objects and
reasons for enacting the said legislation, which reads as
hereunder: –
“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
In spite of the fact that the plantation industry
provides employment for more than a million
workers, there is at present no comprehensive
legislation regulating the conditions of labour in the
industry. The Tea Districts Emigrant Labour Act,
1932, which applies only to Assam, regulates
merely the conditions of recruitment of labour for
employment in the tea gardens of Assam. The
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, which applies
to estates growing cinchona, coffee, rubber or tea
also does not confer any substantial benefit on
plantation labour as accidents in plantations are
few. The other Labour Acts, like the Payment of
Wages Act, 1936, the Industrial Employment
Standing Orders Act, 1946 and the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, benefit plantation labour only to
a very limited extent. In its report the Labour
Investigation Committee observed “that as the
conditions of life and employment on plantations
were different from those on other industries, it
would be very difficult to fit plantation labour in the
general framework of the Industrial Labour
Legislation without creating serious anomalies” and
recommended a plantation Labour Code covering all
plantation areas.
Page 9 of 36
2. The present Bill, drafted as an all-India measure,
seeks to regulate the conditions of plantation labour
generally. It applies in the first instance to tea,
coffee, rubber and cinchona plantations, but the
State Government may apply it to any other
plantations. Provision is made in the Bill for
assuring to the worker reasonable amenities, as for
example, the supply of wholesome drinking water or
suitable medical and educational facilities or
provision for canteens and creches in suitable cases,
or provision for sufficient number of latrines and
urinals separetely for males and females. Housing
accommodation is also to be provided for every
worker and standards and specifications of such
housing accommodation will be prescribed after due
consultation. The Bill also regulates the working
hours of workers employed in the plantations.
3. Children under 12 are prohibited from
employment in any plantation and State
Governments are empowered to make rules
regulating the payment of sickness or maternity
benefits.
4. Necessary provision is made in the Bill for the
appointment of a suitable inspecting, medical or
other staff for the purposes of securing the
implementation of the various provisions in the Bill.”
13. A reading of the aforesaid statement of objects and
reasons makes it clear that since the general provision of
the Industrial Labour Legislation does not cater to the
requirement of the conditions of life and employment in the
plantation industry, as they were different from those in
other industries, it became necessary to enact special
legislation to regulate the conditions of life, including
suitable medical and educational facilities, etc., for workers
employed in the plantations. It is with this very object that
the 1951 Act was enacted, extending to the whole of India,
Page 10 of 36
except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Subsection (4) of
Section 1 of 1951 Act reads as hereunder:-
“(4) It applies to the following plantations, that is to
say,-
(a) to any land used or intended to be used for
growing tea, coffee, rubber, [„cinchona or
cardamom‟] which admeasures [„5 hectares‟] or
more and in which [„fifteen‟] or more persons are
employed on any day of the preceeding twelve
months;
(b) to any land used or intended to be used for
growing any other plant, which admeasures [„5
hectares‟] or more and in which [„fifteen‟) or more
persons are employed or were employed on any day
of the preceding twelve months, if, after obtaining
the approval of the Central Government, the State
Government, by notification in the Official Gazette,
so directs.]
[„Explanation.- Where any piece of land for growing
any plant reffered to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this
sub-section admeasures less than 5 hectares and is
contiguous to any other piece of land not being so
used, but capable of being so used, and both such
pieces of land are under the management of the
same employer, then, for the purposes of this sub-
section, the piece of land first mentioned shall be
deemed to be a plantation, if the total area of both
such pieces of land admeasures 5 hectares or
more.‟]”
14. Reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that
the Act 1951 is applicable to the petitioner’s tea plantation.
Section 10 which provides for the medical facilities reads as
hereunder:-
“10. Medical facilities.- (1) In every plantation
there shall be provided and maintained so as to be
readily available such medical facilities for the
workers [and their families] as may be prescribed by
the State Government.
Page 11 of 36
(2) If in any plantation medical facilities are not
provided and maintained as required by sub-section
(1) the [State Government upon a request by the
Chief inspector] may cause to be provided and
maintained therein such medical facilities, and
recover the cost thereof from the defaulting
employer.
(3) For the purposes of such recovery the Chief
Inspector may certify the costs to be recovered to the
collector, who may recover the amount as an arrear
of land revenue.”
15. Reading of the aforesaid section, it is clear that under
the 1951 Act, every plantation is mandated to make medical
facilities readily available for the workers and their families.
Therefore, it is established that the management/petitioner
No.2 is required under the provision of the 1951 Act to
provide medical facilities not only to the respondent No.3
but also to his family members, including his wife. It further
appears that such medical facilities are prescribed by the
state government. It further appears that if any plantation
fails to provide the medical facilities as required under
subsection (1) of Section 10, the State Government upon a
request by the Chief Inspector shall provide such medical
facilities, which would later on be recovered from the
defaulting employer, and for this purpose the Chief
Inspector shall certify the cost to be recovered to the
collector, who may recover the amount as an arrear of land
revenue.
16. The issue at hand relates to cancer treatment. Let me
now analyze whether cancer treatment is required to be
Page 12 of 36
mandatorily provided by the management of a plantation
industry under the provisions of the said 1951 Act. As noted
above, under subsection (1) of Section 10 of the 1951 Act,
the medical facilities that are required in every plantation to
be provided readily available for the workers are required to
be prescribed by the concerned state government. The
State of Assam, in exercise of its powers conferred by
subsection (1) of Section 43 of the 1951 Act enacted the
Rules 1956, wherein in Rule 35 to Rule 43, the medical
treatment that every plantation is required to provide and
maintain under Section 10 of 1951 Act is prescribed.
17. Rule 35 of the 1956 Rules provides two types of
hospitals in plantations i.e., Garden Hospitals and Group
Hospitals. Rule 35 of the 1956 Rules reads as hereunder:-
“35. Types of Hospitals.- There shall be two types
of hospitals in plantations, viz, Garden Hospitals
and Group Hospitals-
(i) Garden Hospitals will deal with out-patients, in-
patient not requiring any elaborate diagnosis and
treatment, infectious cases, mid-wifery, simple pre-
natal and post-natal care of infants and children
and periodical inspection of workers.
(ii) Group Hospitals shall be capable of dealing
efficiently with all types of cases normally
encountered but will not be used for routine
treatment. Admission to Group Hospitals shall be
only on the recommendation of a garden hospital
doctor.”
18. Rule 36 of the 1956 Rules, which deal with Garden
Hospitals, reads as hereunder:-
Page 13 of 36
“36. Garden Hospitals. (1) Subject to the
provisions of sub Rule (2), every employer shall be
the 31st December, 1956, provide a garden hospital
in his plantation according to the standard laid
down in these rules.
(2) Every employer of plantations ordinarily
employing less than 500 workers may, however,
provide a garden hospital in his plantation according
to the standard laid down in these rules or have a
lien on the beds of a neighbouring garden or other
hospital to the scale of 15 beds per 1,000 workers
provided such hospital is situated within a distance
of five kilometers from the garden Office.
(3) In case of lien on hospital beds, the plantation
concerned shall provide and run for the benefit of
the outpatients a dispensary of its own with at least
two detention beds of the standard approved by the
Chief Inspector of plantations under the immediate
care and supervision of a full time qualified
pharmacist assisted by a full time trained nurse-
cum-midwife and visited daily at regular hours by
the qualified medical practitioner of the hospital on
the beds of which it has a lien, patients requiring
detention at the hospital and treatment therein being
removed to it forthwith.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules
(1) and (2), a part of plantation under the name and
style of an out-garden or division of the like
employing not less then 200 workers, the residential
areas of which are situated at a distance of
two kilometers or more by road from the garden
hospital, shall have dispensaries with two detention
beds of the standard approved by the Chief
Inspector of plantations under the immediate care of
full time qualified pharmacist assisted by a full time
trained midwife, but supervised and visited daily at
regular hours by the qualified medical practitioner of
the garden hospital for the treatment of out patients
only, patients requiring detention at the hospital and
treatment therein being removed to it forthwith.
(5) Each garden hospital shall be at lest under a
whole time qualified medical practitioner assisted by
at least one trained nurse, one trained midwive, one
qualified pharmacist and one trained health
assistant, all of whom shall be wholetime ones, and
Page 14 of 36
all of whose services should be readily available
during all hours.
(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-rules (3), (4) and
(5) above medical and auxiliary personnel shall be
appointed according to the following scale-
Qualified medical practitioner- One per every 1,750
workers or part thereof.
Midwive- One per every 1,750 workers or part
thereof,
Trained nursing attendants- One per every 300
workers or part thereof.
Pharmacist- One per every, 1,750 workers or part
thereof.
Health assistant- One per every 2,100 workers or
part thereof)
(7)(a) A minimum of 15 beds shall be provided in
every garden hospital per 1,000 workers served and
each bed shall be allowed at least 60 sq. ft. of floor
space.
(b) Every hospital shall be of sound permanent
construction, with impermeable washable walls to a
height of at least 5 feet on the inside with proper
water supply and efficient sanitary arrangement.
(c) Every hospital shall have pure piped water
supply and the wards, consulting room, operation
theatre and dispensary shall each haye a water
point over a suitable glazed sink.
(d) The following department shall be provided-
(i) Genral ward for males;
(ii) General ward for female;
(iii) Maternity ward with separate labour
room;
(iv) Family Planning Centre;
(v) T.B. and V.D. Clinics;
(vi) Out-patients department (with sufficient
waiting space for patients to wait under cover
preferably situated in a separate block from
general wards);
Page 15 of 36
(vii) Consulting room so arranged that patients
can be examined in privacy;
(viii) Minor operation and dressing room;
(ix) Dispensary and Drug Store;
(x) General Store;
(xi) Kitchen for cooking (fly-proofed)
(“(xii) Separate small isolation wards for
ordinary communicable diseases;
(xiii) A separate block at a reasonable
distance from the general wards and the
isolation wards for infections, T.B. patients
with completely separate lavatories and baths
exclusively for their use.”]”
(e) In every hospital, transport facilities shall be
provided for carrying patients to and from Group
Hospitals free of charge by the employer.
[“(f) In every plantation stretcher with bearers shall
be maintained for carrying needy patients free of
charge from the residential areas to the dispensary
of the hospital, as the case may be.
(g) In every plantation having lien on the beds of a
neighbouring garden or other hospital transport
facilities shall be provided for carrying patients to
and from such hospital free of charge by the
employer”
19. Rule 37 of the 1956 Rules, which deals with Group
Hospitals, reads as under: –
“37. Group Hospitals.- [„(1) Group hospitals shall
established the employers of the plantations
situated in the areas or sub-arcas as specified by
the Chief Inspector of plantations within the time
limit prescribed by him in consulation with the
Medical Advisory Board at such places are
considered central or otherwise suitable to the
groups of the gardens concerned and share the cost
of establishment, running, etc. of such hospitals.‟Page 16 of 36
(2) Plans for the establishment of Group Hospitals
containing detail as regards their location and size,
areas of plantations served, the number of workers
employed thereon, etc., shall be appoved by the
State Government.
(3) Every group Hospital shall have a minimum or
100 beds and there shall be at least 3 beds per 700
workers, every bed having 80 sq. ft. of floor space :
Provided that the State Government may fix a
lesser number of beds to be provided in a Group
Hospital, and exempt a group of plantation from
providing a group Hospital, if it is satisfied that
educate alternative arrangements exist for treatment
of patients intended to be treated at a Group
Hospital:
Provided further that no exemption shall be allowed
without the previous approval of the Central
Government.
(4) The hospitals shall be built according to such
specifications as may be approved by the State
Government.
(5) There shall be provision for piped supply of pure
water, electricity, modern methods of sanitation and
water flushed closets. Each ward, labour room,
surgical dressing room, consulting room and
dispensary shall have a water point over a suitable
glazed sink:
Provided that with the approval of the State
Government, suitable alternative arrangements may
be made in regard to supply of pure water,
electricity and other modern methods of sanitation.
(6) Each Hospital shall have subject to the
recommendation of the Advisory Board, provision
for-
Operating Theatre block;
X-Ray block;
Physical therapy block;
Dental treatment block;
Page 17 of 36
Labour room;
T. B. and V. D. clinics;
Consulting and examination rooms;
Clinical Laboratory, fully equipped;
Dispensary;
Administrative and office block;
Kitchen and Laundary blocks;
Lavatories and bathrooms;
Stores;
Mortuary and post-mortem room;
Out-patients block which should preferably be
at some little distance from the wards.
Separate wards shall be provided for males, female,
maternity cases and small isolated wards for
infections diseases:
Provided that X-Ray, Physical Theraphy Blocks and
Dental treatment block may not be provided if
satisfactory arrangements are made by an
employers to provide these facilities with some
hospital approved by the Chief Inspector.
(7) (a) Every Group Hospital shall have such medical
and other staff as may be specified by the State
Government. All doctors in a Group Hospital shall be
qualified medical practitioners.
(b) There shall be 15 nurses for a 100 bedded
hospital of whom one shall be senior trained, 5
junior trained and 9 assistant nurses. Such
classification may be made according to their
qualifications and experience.
(8) A properly equipped ambulance shall be
maintained in every Group Hospital”
20. Reading the aforesaid rules, it is clear that Garden
Hospitals deal with outpatients, inpatients not requiring any
Page 18 of 36
elaborative diagnosis and treatment, infectious case,
midwifery, simple prenatal and postnatal care of infants and
children, and periodical inspection of workers, while Group
Hospitals deal with all types of cases normally encountered
but will not be used for routine treatments. It further
appears that in Group Hospitals the following provisions
have to be provided: –
“Operating Theatre block;
X-Ray block;
Physical therapy block;
Dental treatment block;
Labour room;
T. B. and V. D. clinics;
Consulting and examination rooms;
Clinical Laboratory, fully equipped;
Dispensary;
Administrative and office block;
Kitchen and Laundary blocks;
Lavatories and bathrooms;
Stores;
Mortuary and post-mortem room;
Out-patients block which should preferably be at
some little distance from the wards.”
21. Rule 38 of the 1956 Rules provides the list of
equipment and drugs which is required to be maintained by
a plantation, which reads as hereunder:-
“38. Equipment and drugs.- Every dispensary,
garden hospital and group hospital shall maintain
such equipment and drugs, etc., as may be specified
by the State Government.”
Page 19 of 36
22. In terms of the aforesaid Rule 38 of 1956 Rules, the
Government of Assam, Labour and Employment
Department, vide notification dated 20.06.2005, prescribed
the specified list of equipments that is to be maintained in
tea garden hospitals and dispensaries in the State of Assam,
which reads as hereunder:-
“NOTIFICATION
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT:LABOUR (RC) BRANCH
ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR
Dated, Dispur, 20th June, 2005.
No.GLR(RC).22/90/Pt.II/314- On the
recommendation of the State Medical Advisory
Board of Plantation workers, the Governor of Assam
is pleased to specify under rule 38 of the Assam
Plantations Rules, 1956 the equipments to be
maintained in tea garden hospitals and
dispensaries in the State of Assam as in the
following-
LIST OF EQUIPMENTS TO BE MAINTAINED IN
TEA GARDEN HOSPITALS AND DISPENSARIES
ADEQUATE NUMBERS OF-
I. Furniture and Linens:
1. Examination
2. Tables and Chairs
3. Wooden/Iron rak
4. Almirah
5. Instrument Cabinet
6. Screen
7. Benches
8. Dressing table
9. Iron beds
10. Besides lockers
11. Baby cots
12. Cotton Foam mattresses
Page 20 of 36
13. Hospital blanket (woolen: red)
14. Bed sheets
15. Pillows
16. Pillow covers
17. Mosquito net/Mosquito proofing of wards
18. Sarees for patients
19. Shirts and paijamas for Patients/Patients
uniform.
20. Towels
21. Aprons
22. Baby towel for new born babies
23. Waterproof sheets
11. Sterilising Instruments and appliances:
1. Instrument Steriliser-Ordinary/Electrical
2. Electric heater
3. Sterilising Instrument holding forcep
III. Obsterical and Gynaecological:
1. Standard Obstetrical table with complete fittings
2. Episiotomy scissors
3. Foetoscope
4. Sym’s Vaginal speculum
5. Mucous sucker
6. Dilator and Curette Set
7. Vulsellum
8. Uterine sound
9. Anterior Vaginal retractor
10. Spot light for labour room
IV. ENT & Dental Instruments:
1. ENT Diagonostic set
2. Tongue depressor
3. Foreign body hook
4. Nasal and aural dressing forcep
5. Nasal speculum
6. Aural syringe
7. Laryngeal mirror
8. Torch with Batteries
9. Tuning Fork
Page 21 of 36
V. Surgical & Orthopaedic Instruments and
appliances:
1. Kocher’s Artery forceps
2. Artery forceps (Spencer Wells)
3. Mosquito Attery forceps
4. Dissecting forceps (Plain and toothed)
5. Scalpel/Bard parker Knife
6. Scissors
7. Sponge holding forceps
8. Needle holder
9. Tissue forceps
10. Sinus forceps
11. Retractor (small right angled)
12. O. T. Light
13. Suction machine
14. Stich cutting scissors
15. Dressing Drum
16. Wash basins with stand
17. Vicryl Catgut
18. Cotton, Gauge, Roll bandages
19. Adhesive plasters
20. Silk/Nylon/Cotton thread
21. Surgeon’s Masks
22. Rubber/Disposable Gloves
23. Suturing needles
24. Male Urethral Catheters
25. Female Urethral Catheters
26. Foley’s Catheter
27. Instrument Tray with lid
28. Traction set – Cervical and lum-ber
29. Cramer’s wire splint
30. Thomas’ splint (Adult & Child)
31. Airway Metallic/Plastic
VI. Laboratory Equipments, Reagents:
1. Microscope with fittings
2. Test tubes
3. Test tube rack
4. E.S.R. Set with stand
5. Sprit Lamp
6. Haemoglobinometer
7. Haemocytometer
Page 22 of 36
8. Cover slip
9. Blood slides
10. Litmus paper (Red & Blue)
11. Benedict’s Solution
12. Leishman’s stain
13. N/10 Hydrochloric Acid
14. Diastix strip-Optional
15. 3.8% Solution Sodium Citrate
16. W.B.C. fluid
17. R.B.C fluid
18. Blood Grouping Kit
19. Glacial Acetic acid
20. Rapid Malaria Test Kit Optional
21. Pregnancy Diagnosis Kit
VII. Miscellaneous Equipments & Instruments:
1. Refrigerator
2. Oxygen Cylinder with fittings
3. Stretcher
4. Water filters
5. Saline stand
6. Enema cans
7. Bed pans
8. Male Urinals
9. Female Urinals
10. Feding cups
11. Kidney Trays
12. Basins
13. Spittons
14. Weighing machine (Adult)
15. Weighing machine (Baby)
16. Height measuring scale
17. Hot water bags
18. Breast pump
19. Blood pressure instruments
20. Stethoscope
21. Syringes of various sizes
22. Intramuscular/Intravenous needles
23. Ryle’s Tube
24. Stomach Tube
25. Clinical Thermometer
26. Reflex hammer
Page 23 of 36
27. Infra red light
28. I.V. Set
29. I.V. Canula
30. Scalp Vein Set
31. Venesection Set
32. X-Ray View Box
33. Dustbin
34. Bucket
VIII. Other items/structures required:
1. Incinerator.”
23. Reading the aforesaid provisions, it is absolutely clear
that the medical facilities that are required to be made
readily available to the workers and their families are, inter
alia, in relation to normal encountered illnesses and do not
require any highly specialized treatments. Cancer
undoubtedly is a special/distinct type of disease due to its
unique characteristics, including the uncontrolled growth of
abnormal cells and its ability to spread to other parts of the
body. In most cases a biopsy is the only way to definitively
confirm a cancer diagnosis. It is apparent that biopsy
procedures to detect cancer are not prescribed under the
aforesaid provisions of the 1951 Act and 1956 Rules for the
plantation to be maintained in their hospitals. That apart,
cancer treatment involves highly sophisticated and
specialized technologies and includes, inter alia surgery,
chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy,
along with targeted therapies, hormone therapy and clinical
trials, as the case may require. The list of facilities required
to be provided in the Group Hospitals as extracted above
Page 24 of 36
does not include any such specialized facilities. That apart,
the list of equipment and drugs as prescribed by the state
government under Rule 38 of the 1956 Rules, which are
required to be maintained by the tea garden hospitals and
dispensaries in the State of Assam, also does not include
any of the specialized equipment required for the treatment
of cancer. In fact, it will not be out of place to mention that
there are only few dedicated cancer hospitals, institutes,
and centres in the entire State of Assam providing the
treatment of cancer. It is thus unimaginable that tea garden
hospitals can be said to provide such sophisticated and
specialized cancer treatment requiring a specialist doctor at
their Garden Hospitals for workers and their families. Be
that as it may, there being no requirement in the 1951 Act,
to provide cancer treatment, the question of providing the
same by the plantation does not arise.
24. Thus, as a necessary corollary to the above discussion,
it is abundantly evident that there is no requirement in law
for the plantation to provide treatment for cancer in the
garden hospital. Hence, the argument of Ms. A.
Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 &
3, to the effect to read cancer treatment into the list of
specified medical facilities provided under Section 10 of the
said Act is totally fallacious inasmuch as if the statute does
not provide a particular treatment in the list of specified
treatments mandated for the plantations to follow, neither
the tribunal nor this Court in exercise of certiorari
Page 25 of 36
jurisdiction can add a new statutory obligation in the said
1951 Act and 1956 Rules. It is settled law that court or
tribunal cannot rewrite or recast legislation. Reference in
this regard is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A.
Balakrishnan and anr., reported in 2022 9 SCC 186,
wherein the Apex Court held as hereunder:-
“75. It is more than well settled that when the
language of a statutory provision is plain and
unambiguous, it is not permissible for the Court to
add or subtract words to a statute or read
something into it which is not there. It cannot rewrite
or recast legislation. At the cost of repetition, we
observe that if the argument as advanced by Shri
Viswanathan is to be accepted, it will completely
change the texture of the fabric of subsection (22A)
of Section 19 of the Debt Recovery Act.
76. Though there are umpteen number of authorities
to support this proposition, we do not wish to
burden our judgment with them. Suffice it to refer to
the judgment of three-Judge Bench of this Court in
the case of Nasiruddin and others vs. Sita Ram
Agarwal, (2003) 2 SCC 577 wherein this Court has
held as under:
’37. The court’s jurisdiction to interpret a statute can
be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well
known that in a given case the court can iron out the
fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It
cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention
when the language of the provision is plain and
unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract words to a
statute or read something into it which is not there. It
cannot rewrite or recast legislation. It is also
necessary to determine that there exists a
presumption that the legislature has not used any
superfluous words. It is well settled that the real
intention of the legislation must be gathered from thePage 26 of 36
language used. It may be true that use of the
expression ‘shall or may’ is not decisive for arriving at
a finding as to whether the statute is directory or
mandatory. But the intention of the legislature must be
found out from the scheme of the Act. It is also equally
well settled that when negative words are used the
courts will presume that the intention of the legislature
was that the provisions are mandatory in character.”
25. In the instant case, there being no requirement for the
plantation to provide cancer treatment under the provisions
of the 1951 Act, the argument of the respondents, if
accepted, could be to provide something that is not there in
the 1951 Act. I am of the firm view that accepting the same
would undoubtedly be usurpation of the role of the
legislature, which would totally undermine the principles of
separation of powers and checks and balances, and
therefore the said contention cannot be accepted.
26. Pertinent at this juncture to refer to Rule 42 of 1956
Rules, which provides the consequences in case the
plantation fails to provide and maintain the requisite medical
facilities, which reads as hereunder:-
“42. Failure to provide and maintain medical
Facilities as required in these rules.- (1) If any
employer does not provide and maintain medical
facilities as required in these rules to the
satisfaction of the Chief Inspector, the latter will
cause to be provided and maintained these facilities
in the nearest garden hospital or dispensary, or in a
District Board or other similar hospital, or if he
considers necessary authorise either by general or
special order medical treatment by any qualified
medical practitioner and/or in any hospital that may
be found convenient”. The defaulting employer shallPage 27 of 36
be liable to pay the cost of such medical facilities
including charges, if any, in respect of-
(a) a medical officer’s visit to the plantation for
the purpose of attendance on any sick worker
or worker’s;
(b) the maintenance of sick worker in a
hospital/dispensary for each day’s
maintenance; and transport to and provided
sick worker:
In addition to the above, the defaulting employer
may be liable to pay a penalty as determined by the
Chief Inspector of Plantations which may extend to a
like amount.
[“(2) If any group of plantations required under these
rules to provide the facilities of a group hospital fail
to do so, the State Government may, on the advice of
the Medical Advisory Board, cause such facilities to
be provided in such manner as may be
recommended by the Board and recover the cost
thereof by levies based on the hectair age under tea
or on any other basis and such levies may be
recovered, as herein after provided, as an arrear of
land revenue.”)
27. Reading the aforesaid rules, it appears that it is only in
the event the plantation fails to provide and maintain any of
the medical facilities as required under the 1951 Act and
1956 Rules to the satisfaction of the Chief Inspector, such
facilities shall be provided in the nearest garden hospital or
dispensary or in a district board or other similar hospital or
by any qualified medical practitioner and/or in any hospital
that may be found convenient, and the cost of such medical
facilities shall have to be borne by the defaulting employer.
Therefore, it is only in respect of those facilities that are
required under the Act and Rules, failing which the
Page 28 of 36
management is required to reimburse the expenses incurred
in such medical treatment. Since there is no requirement for
the plantation to provide or maintain treatment for cancer,
failure to provide such treatment cannot make the
plantation a defaulter under the provisions of the 1951 Act
and 1956 Rules. It is worth mentioning that the argument of
Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondents,
to the effect that it is imperative for the petitioners to
protect the health of the workmen and their families, there
is no quarrel to the aforesaid contention; however, the
same is of no support to the respondents inasmuch as it is
nobody’s case that the petitioners are not providing the
medical facilities as specified under the Act 1951.
28. The relief sought in the instant writ petition is issuance
of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the said impugned
Award dated 07.06.2014 passed by the learned Industrial
Tribunal. The certiorari jurisdiction conferred under Article
226 is a limited jurisdiction. The writ court, while exercising
powers under certiorari jurisdiction, cannot constitute itself
into an appellate court over the inferior courts and tribunals.
It is only in respect for correcting errors of jurisdiction
committed by the inferior courts and tribunals. Reference is
made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Syed
Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors., reported in
AIR 1964 SC 477. Paragraph 7 and 8 of the aforesaid
judgment reads as hereunder: –
Page 29 of 36
“7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of
High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under
Article 226 has been frequently considered by this
Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no
longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for
correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior
courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders
are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without
jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of
failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly
be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred
on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or properly,
as for instance, it decides a question without giving
an opportunity, be heard to the party affected by the
order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing
with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural
justice. There is, however, no doubt that the
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a
supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is
not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This
limitation necessarily means that findings of fact
reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of
the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or
questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law
which is apparent on the face of the record can be
corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however
grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of
fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can
be issued if it is shown that in recording the said
finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to
admit admissible and material evidence, or had
erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which
has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a
finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would
be regarded as an error of law which can be
corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this
category of cases, however, we must always bear in
mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal
cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of
certiorari on the ground that the relevant and
material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was
insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned
finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence ledPage 30 of 36
on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from
the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be
agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits
that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts
under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be
legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v.
Syed Ahmad Ishaque Nagandra Nath Bora v.
Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam²
and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh.
8. It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately
describe what an error of law apparent on the face
of the record means. What can be corrected by a
writ has to be an error of law; but it must be such an
error of law as can be regarded as one which is
apparent on the face of the record. Where it is
manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded
by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an
obvious misinterpretation of the relevant statutory
provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be,
even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on
reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion
can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these
cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly
inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision
that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in
holding that the said error of law is apparent on the
face of the record. It may also be that in some cases,
the impugned error of law may not be obvious or
patent on the face of the record as such and the
Court may need an argument to discover the said
error; but there can be no doubt that what can be
corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law
and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a
character as would satisfy the test that it is an error
of law apparent on the face of the record. If a
statutory provision is reasonably capable of two
constructions and one construction has been
adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its
conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to
correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it is
neither possible nor desirable to attempt either toPage 31 of 36
define or to describe adequately all cases of errors
which can be appropriately described as errors of
law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or
not an impugned error is an error of law and an
error of law which is apparent on the face of the
record, must always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and upon the nature
and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to
have been misconstrued or contravened.”
29. Viewed thus, what can be corrected by a writ of
certiorari has to be an error of law, but it must be such an
error of law that can be regarded as one that is apparent on
the face of the record. In other words, if the court or
tribunal acts without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a
result of failure to exercise jurisdiction, or on an obvious
misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or
sometimes in ignorance of it, or maybe even in disregard of
it, or is expressly founded on reasons that are wrong in law,
the same can be corrected by issuance of a writ of certiorari
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
30. Turning now to the Award of the Industrial Tribunal
under challenge, it appears that the Industrial Tribunal
answered the questions No.1 and 2 of the reference in
favour of the workman by holding that the workman is
entitled to a medical bill of Rs.2,10,810/- for the cancer
treatment of his wife outside the State of Assam.
31. Apt to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the said
Award, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
Page 32 of 36
“In the course of argument, the learned counsel for
the workman has contended that as per the
provision Section 10 of the Plantations Labour Act
the wife of the workman is also entitled for medical
facilities. At this stage, I would like to recapitulate
Section 10 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951
which are as follows:-
10. Medical facilities:
(1) In every plantation there shall be provided and
maintained so as to be readily available such
medical facilities for the workers (and their families)
as may be prescribed by the state Government.
(2) If any plantation medical facilities are not
provided and maintained as required by Sub-section
(1) the Chief Inspector may cause to be provided and
maintained therein such medical facilities, and
recover the cost thereof from the defaulting
employer.
Thus from the above provision, it is clear that
not only workers but their families are also entitled
for medical facilities. Therefore I find force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the workman
so far the medical facilities for the family of the
workman is concerned.
Refuting the submission of learned counsel for
the workman the learned counsel for the
management has contended that as per rules
prescribed under section 10 of the Plantation Labour
Act there shall be two types of hospitals, i.e. garden
hospital and group hospital. But the workman did
not follow the procedure of reimbursement. Learned
counsel for the management has further contended
the wife of workman did not take treatment at
B.Baruah Cancer Institute, Guwahati.
I have considered the submission of the
learned counsel for the management. Though there
are two types of hospitals but the management has
failed to show that treatment for cancer is available
either in the garden hospital or in the group hospital.
Due to seriousness of disease the patient went to
Page 33 of 36
Mumbai for treatment. When the patient was
referred to outside by GMCH was the prerogative of
the patient where to go for treatment of Cancer
disease That apart the I.D. Act is social legislation
intended to protect the interest of workman
employed in various industries. Non payment of bill
to the workman, is violation principle of natural
justice.
Thus from the above discussion it is evident
that the workman had observed all the procedure
for medical reimbursement. Despite following the
procedure, the management of Kakodonga T.E. had
refused to pay the medical bill Rs.2,10,810/- to Sri
Anıl Saikia for treatment of his wife who was
suffering from Cancer which was not justified.
Therefore the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.
2,10,810/- from the management of Kakodonga Tea
Estate.”
32. Reading the above, it is clear that the Industrial
Tribunal, by holding that the workman as per Section 10 of
the 1951 Act is not only entitled to medical facilities for
himself but also for his family members, has held that since
the management/petitioner No.2 has failed to show that
treatment for cancer is available either in the Garden
Hospital or in the Group Hospital, the refusal thereof to pay
the medical bill of the respondent No.3 for treatment of his
wife, who was suffering from cancer, is not justified. It is
thus apparent that the learned Industrial Tribunal has held
the management/petitioner No.2 a defaulter under the said
1951 Act and 1956 Rules and accordingly, imposed the
penalty of reimbursing the subject medical bill of the
respondent No.3.
Page 34 of 36
33. As noted above, the 1951 Act does not mandate the
management of a plantation to provide treatment for cancer
in the Garden Hospitals. There being no requirement in law
for the management/petitioner No.2 to provide treatment
for cancer in their hospital for their workers and families,
the respondent No.3 has no legal right to claim
reimbursement of medical bills in relation to the treatment
of his wife, who was suffering from cancer. Therefore, in
the instant case, the learned Tribunal, by imposing a penalty
upon the management/petitioner No.2 for defaulting in
providing cancer treatment, has gone to the extent of
adding a new medical facility in the 1951 Act for the
management/petitioner No.2., to provide, has exceeded its
jurisdiction, and has transgressed into the role of the
legislature. Any such Award passed by the Tribunal beyond
its jurisdiction is patently illegal and cannot be enforced.
34. That being so, I am of the unhesitant view that the
learned Industrial Tribunal has committed a jurisdictional
error apparent on the face of the record in passing the
impugned Award dated 07.06.2014, and therefore, the
same is to be corrected by this court in exercise of its
powers under the certiorari jurisdiction. Hence, I do so.
35. Accordingly, the Award dated 07.06.2014 passed by
the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in Reference
Case No.3/2010 (which was published vide a Notification
dated 31.07.2014) is hereby set aside and quashed.
Page 35 of 36
36. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed and is
disposed of.
37. Before closing the matter, this court expresses its
appreciation and satisfaction to the assistance rendered by
Mr. Rakesh Sarmah, learned Amicus Curiae, who was
appointed by this court vide order dated 28.03.2025 to
assist this court on the legal issue involved in the case at
hand.
38. Return the trial court record.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Page 36 of 36