Whether word "family" in scheme would include his father so as to enable him to claim reimbursement is a question of fact.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed for a declaration that denying the petitioners benefits payable under the Special Medical Assistance Scheme for the open heart surgery undergone by the petitioners father on 13.12.2005 is illegal and also directed the respondent to extend the benefit under the scheme to the petitioner and reimburse the medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner by paying Rs. 90,537/- with 12% interest per annum from the Labour Welfare Fund.

3. The esse of the petitioner is that he has joined in the services of the respondent as Assistant Tradesman on 15.11.1999 and working at the Sivakasi Branch of the respondent-Corporation as Junior Tradesman as on date. As per the settlement entered into between the trade unions of the employees and the management of the respondent under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 13.2.1999, a special medical assistance scheme to the benefit of the workmen was introduced. It is called the Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation Employees Family Medical Assistance Scheme under which an employee is entitled for the maximum upto Rs.1,00,000/- for undergoing five types of medical treatments either by himself or by his family members. Accordingly, the petitioner and other workmen have been paying Rs. 5/- per month from the monthly wages to the scheme as a subscription under Clause 79(3) of the settlement. The medical assistance given in respect of (i) Heart surgery (ii) Kidney Transplantation (iii) Ballooning heart operation (iv) Cancer surgery (v) Brain Tumor surgery. The petitioners father has suffered a chest pain and he underwent an open heart surgery on 13.12.2005 in the Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. In respect of the said surgery of his father, the petitioner had to spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and he has paid Rs. 96,537/- to the hospital alone. Since, the scheme is made applicable, the petitioner is entitled for the said amount, he has made representation on 29.12.2005 to the respondent along with the necessary certificates and the same has not been considered.

4. In the circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition contending inter alia that the denial of the right is violative of Article 14 and the the refusal to implement the settlement constitutes an offence under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act and also the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 6302 of 2003 dated 4.8.2005 under which this Court has extended the benefit of the scheme to the father of the petitioner therein who has undergone a special medical treatment.

5. The respondent has filed counter-affidavit. While admitting that, the Employees Medical Assistance Scheme was introduced under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the employees are entitled to get upto Rs. 1,00,000/- for the employees family which was as per the settlement dated 28.9.1995, subsequently, by another settlement dated 13.2.1999, it was agreed to extend the scheme by applying the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme to the employees of the State Transport Corporations. As per the G.O. 194 dated 16.3.1993 by which the Government has already amended the Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme wherein while defining the ‘family’ it is stated to include wife and children of the Government servant and in the case of unmarried Government servant it would include the dependant parents. According to the petitioner, he is a married man and therefore, as per the definition of the ‘family’ the petitioner is not entitled for the amount spent for his fathers treatment as per the scheme.

6. Mr. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court while interpreting the definition of the ‘family’ as per the G.O. Ms. No. 194 dated 16.3.1993 in the order of this Court dated 4.8.2005 passed in writ petitio