Plantations Not Mandated to Provide Cancer Treatment Under Plantations Labour Act, 1951; Tribunals Cannot Add New Obligations: Gauhati High Court - 2025-05-19

Tracking Legal Developments.

Gauhati High Court: Tea Estates Not Legally Bound to Cover Cancer Treatment Under Plantations Labour Act; Industrial Tribunal Overstepped Jurisdiction

Guwahati, Assam – May 19, 2025 – The Gauhati High Court, in a significant ruling, has clarified the extent of medical benefits tea plantations are mandated to provide their workers, holding that cancer treatment does not fall under the prescribed facilities under the Plantations Labour Act, 1951, and the Assam Plantations Labour Rules, 1956. Hon’ble Mr. Justice KaushikGoswami set aside an Industrial Tribunal's award that had directed M/s Kakadonga Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. to reimburse an employee for his wife's cancer treatment expenses. The Court found that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively adding a new obligation not envisioned by the statute.

Case Background: A Dispute Over Medical Reimbursement

The case, WP(C) No.5180/2014, originated when Shri Anil Saikia , an employee of Kakadonga Tea Estate, sought reimbursement of Rs.2,10,810 for his wife's cancer treatment, which included care in Mumbai. The tea estate management declined the reimbursement. This led to an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh. On June 7, 2014, the Tribunal ruled in favour of Shri Saikia , holding the tea estate liable for the medical bill. The management subsequently challenged this award in the Gauhati High Court through a writ petition.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners (M/s Kakadonga Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.): Represented by Mr. N. Deka , the tea estate argued that the Plantations Labour Act, 1951, and the Assam Plantations Labour Rules, 1956, only mandate specific medical facilities in Garden Hospitals, which do not include treatment for cancer or other severe diseases. They contended that the initial treatment provided at the Garden Hospital was a goodwill gesture.

Respondents (Shri Anil Saikia & Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha): Ms. A. Bhattacharyya, counsel for the employee and the union, argued that the right to health and medical aid is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. She asserted that the tea estate had an imperative duty to protect the health of its workers and their families and that denying reimbursement violated this right. She also urged the High Court to generally sustain Industrial Tribunal awards.

Amicus Curiae: Mr. Rakesh Sarmah, appointed as Amicus Curiae, submitted that an Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to the terms of the reference and it cannot pass an award contrary to law or in excess of its jurisdiction. Such errors, he argued, can be corrected by the High Court under its certiorari jurisdiction.

High Court's Analysis: Statutory Limits on Medical Facilities

Justice KaushikGoswami undertook a detailed examination of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951, and the Assam Plantations Labour Rules, 1956, to determine the scope of mandatory medical facilities.

The Court noted Section 10 of the 1951 Act, which requires plantations to provide medical facilities for workers and their families "as may be prescribed by the State Government." The Assam Plantations Labour Rules, 1956 (specifically Rules 35-38 and the 2005 notification detailing equipment), outline the types of hospitals (Garden and Group Hospitals) and the specific facilities, equipment, and drugs to be maintained.

The judgment highlighted: > "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..."

The Court found that sophisticated diagnostic procedures like biopsies and advanced cancer treatments (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy) are not prescribed under the Act or Rules. > "It is thus unimaginable that tea garden hospitals can be said to provide such sophisticated and specialized cancer treatment... 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."

Emphasizing the principle that courts cannot rewrite legislation, Justice Goswami cited Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. A. Balakrishnan : > "...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 jurisdiction can add a new statutory obligation in the said 1951 Act and 1956 Rules... accepting the same would undoubtedly be usurpation of the role of the legislature..."

The Court determined that the Industrial Tribunal, by directing reimbursement for cancer treatment, had effectively imposed a new medical obligation on the plantation, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction. > "As noted above, the 1951 Act does not mandate the management of a plantation to provide treatment for cancer in the Garden Hospitals... 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."

The Court clarified that its power under certiorari jurisdiction (Article 226) is to correct errors of jurisdiction or errors of law apparent on the face of the record, as established in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan .

Decision and Implications

The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside and quashing the Industrial Tribunal's award dated June 7, 2014. The Court concluded that the Tribunal committed a "jurisdictional error apparent on the face of the record."

This judgment underscores that while employers have a general responsibility towards worker health, specific statutory obligations for medical benefits under legislation like the Plantations Labour Act are limited to what is expressly prescribed. Industrial Tribunals cannot expand these statutory mandates beyond the legislative framework, even on humanitarian grounds, if no legal provision supports such an expansion.

The Court also placed on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Rakesh Sarmah, the learned Amicus Curiae.