Jharkhand High Court slams Tata Motors for firing worker who ‘yelled’ at doctor over medical negligence

Justice Deepak Roshan said that instead of treating him, the doctor turned him away and instructed him to visit again, leaving him in pain and suffering. (Image enhanced using AI)

The court added that he was treated in the hospital of his employer and suffered acute pain in his scrotum due to septic infection caused by an unremoved stitch, which constitutes medical negligence.

“It would be normal for any patient to protest and express displeasure when he suffers pain caused by septic infection post-surgery due to an unremoved stitch,” the order stated on February 18.

‘Workman died during litigation, family suffered’

• Even if the industrial tribunal or the labour court is of the view that the domestic inquiry was just and fair, yet this did not bar the tribunal/labour court from considering whether the punishment was proportionate or not.
• The workman did not use any abusive language with his employer or its officers in the course of performance of his duties.
• The workman allegedly used foul words in a state of pain, and when he was asked to leave, he was told to visit the following day.
• There is a finding of perversity in the enquiry of the award, where the complainant and another doctor have given two completely different versions of the incident.
• The alleged words mentioned by both do not support the allegation of the use of expletives.
• It is undisputed that instead of treating him, the doctor turned him away and instructed him to visit again, leaving him in pain and suffering.
• The workman died, and his legal heirs are pursuing this litigation.
• The family of the deceased workman has suffered immensely.

• It is rather unfortunate that the workman not only suffered excruciating pain and discomfort due to medical negligence, but he was also thrown out of service on the complaint of the erring doctor.
• As the workman is already dead, the full monetary benefits including post death or postretirement benefits, should be paid to the substituted legal representatives.

Case of medical negligence

• The legal battle originated in February 1983, when C K Singh, a permanent motor mechanic at the company’s auto transport department, underwent surgery at TELCO Hospital.
• Following the procedure, a surgeon allegedly left a stitch in the patient’s scrotum, leading to severe pain and a septic condition.
• When the Singh returned to the hospital in “excruciating pain” and requested admission, he was reportedly turned away and told to return the following day.
• As the workman was in severe pain, he started yelling at the said Doctor for getting him admitted.
• After a few days, he approached the doctor again, and the stitches were removed.
• After two days of the said incident, the senior surgeon made a formal complaint to the management of the
• petitioner company and requested that necessary action be taken against the workman for using “filthy language” and making “threats” against him.
• Based on the complaint, the workman was chargesheeted in March 1983 for his alleged misconduct.
• A departmental inquiry was instituted, and based on the evidence recorded by the inquiry officer, the workman was found guilty of the alleged misconduct and recommended for his discharge.
• The disciplinary authority took note inquiry officer’s report, and discharged him from June 16, 1984.

• Consequently, an industrial dispute was raised by the engineering mazdoor panchayat, Jamshedpur, and upon failure of conciliation, the appropriate government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Dispute Act referred the matter for adjudication to the labour court.
• The question was raised whether the termination of the service of the Singh workman of TELCO is proper and justified. If not, what relief is he entitled to?
• In 2002, the labour court ordered that the workman was not entitled to any relief claimed.
• In 2007, while hearing the plea against this order, the high court set aside the labour court order, and the workman was given liberty to pursue the case as an Individual Dispute under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act.
• Accordingly, the reference case was pursued by the workman in his individual capacity.
• The labor court found the termination to be illegal and unjustified, directing reinstatement with 40 per cent back wages and continuous service, while withholding two increments as a lesser penalty.
• Tata Motors challenged this award, arguing that the labor court had exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own judgment for that of the management.
• During the pendency of this plea, Singh passed away, and his legal heirs were substituted as respondents.

‘Labour court’s decision legal, valid and proper’

• The high court concluded that the labor court’s decision was “legal, valid and proper”.
• Since the company had been paying the workman’s last-drawn wages under Section 17-B during the pendency of the case without challenge, it could be presumed the workman was not gainfully employed elsewhere.
• The legal heirs are entitled to 40 per cent back wages from the date of dismissal until the date of the award, and full wages and consequential benefits from the date of the award until the workman’s death or superannuation.