- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred against a report given by the Medical Board about the disability and about the grant of benefits of Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement. A subjective Conclusion is arrived at by the doctors is basically challenged in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the petitioner consistently alleges that he is unable to perform his work, whereas, doctors have examined the present petitioner and has arrived at conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement. The said Coal Wage Agreement Clause reads as under: Clause 9.4.0-Employment to one dependant of a worker, who is permanently disabled in his place- (i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease, be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concern. (ii) in case of disablement arising out of general physical debility so certified by the Coal Company, the employee concerned will be eligible for the benefit under this Clause if he/she is up to the age of 58 years. In view of the aforesaid Clause, the petitioner wants benefit to perform with the respondents under Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement and now the petiti6ner has already retired, upon reaching the age of superannuation in June, 2007.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the present petitioner was examined by the doctors, who have arrived at a conclusion, upon medical checkup of the petitioner, which is at Annexure-14 to the memo of the petition, as per the said opinion, the present petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit under Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the opinion given by the experts may not be entertained by this Court in exercise of an extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Medical Board has examined the present petitioner and has given an opinion. Medical Board has no personal grudge against the present petitioner. Thus, there is no misapprehension against the alleged Medical Board, who has given the medical opinion. In view of this Medical Board opinion, there is no substance in this writ petition especially, when the petitioner has already been reached at the age of superannuation and has retired from June, 2007.
(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the; following facts and reasons: (i) The present petitioner was working as Miner Loader with the respondents and he was claiming that he is unable to perform the duties and he was entitled to get the benefit under Clause 9.4.0. of National Coal Wage Agreement and therefore, he was examined by the doctors and earlier also, opinion was given by the panel of the doctors. (ii) The said opinion was challenged by way of a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 4378 of 2006 and it was order by this Court dated 15th December, 2006 (Annexure-11 to the memo of the petition) that again detail reasoning will be given by the respondents for not to give the benefit or for to give the benefit under Clause 9.4.0 of National Coal Wage Agreement, because earlier order was not a speaking order. (iii) It appears that thereafter, again the petitioner was examined by the panel of doctors of the respondents and vide Annexure-14, a detailed report has been submitted by the Medical Board, in which in Clause 11, the opinion of the Medical Board is given, which reads as under: 11. Opinion the Medical Board: Impirment any where Peripheral Nerves- auricular, where Lt. Poplilcol Nerves of both sides- Not Thickened Opinion: From the history, previous treatment records & present physical findings, the board is of the opinion that he is suffering from deformity of fingers and toes of non Hansen's origin. So the case is not recommended for consideration under NCWA 9.4.0. However, for confirmation of diagnosis & second opinion he may be referred to a tertiary care centre like A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi. In view of the aforesaid opinion, again Medical Board has arrived at conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under Clause 9.4.0 of the National Coal Wage Agreement, which is incorporated, hereinabove. In view of this detailed report and reasoning, it can not be said that there is non-application of mind, on the contrary, experts have fully applied their minds and have arrived at conclusion. In exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India I am not inclined to upset the decision arrived at by the panel of doctors, looking to the nature of the sickness and the nature of infirmity found out by the Medical Board with the petitioner. The Court is not a super medical board. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decision that the Court is not Cost Accountant or Chartered Accountant to evaluate experts' opinion on accounts. In a medical opinion also, Court is not having super knowledge and Court is not a super medical board, nor Court can sit in appeal upon opinion of medical board. Once, an opinion has been given by panel of doctors, Court has to check whether the petitioner was properly medically examined. Secondly, whether the opinion given by the experts is having a detailed reasoning or not. The method of arriving at conclusion is to be seen by the Court, but, not a conclusion itself. Looking to the facts of the present case, in pursuance of the earlier decision of the writ petition, the Medical Board has again given an opinion, in detail, at Annexure-14 and I am folly satisfied that the said opinion is self speaking and with detailed reasoning and as per that opinion, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under Clause 9.4.0. of National Coal Wage Agreement. (iv) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Sugiya Oraon v. Central Coal Field Ltd. and Ors., 2002 1 JCR 304. The facts of the reported case, upon which the reliance is placed, are far more different from the facts of the present case. In the reported decision, the petitioner was hospitalized for more than one year, whereas, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner was not hospitalized, but, was taking treatment only as outdoor patient.;