Hospitals too bound by Motor Transport Act: HC
Mohamed Imranullah S.
CHENNAI, June 28, 2018 00:00 IST
CMC’s exemption plea rejected as its services are not free
Private hospitals using their own fleet of motor vehicles for transportation of doctors, nurses, other staff and medical students on payment of requisite charges would squarely fall under the definition of ‘motor transport undertaking’ and consequently, liable to follow the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act of 1961, the Madras High Court has held.
A Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharana and R. Subramanian passed the ruling while dismissing a writ appeal preferred by the management of Christian Medical College in Vellore. The judges refused to issue a writ of declaration that the 1961 legislation would not apply to the appellant since it was only a medical institution and not a transport undertaking. The Bench held that the college would have to get necessarily registered with the Labour department and scrupulously follow the provisions of the 1961 legislation as long as it collects money from its doctors, staff and students for transporting them in its buses and ambulances and does not offer the transporation service free of charge.
Free of cost
“If it is shown that the buses or the motor vehicles belonging to the appellant are used for transport of students/doctors/employees of the appellant free of cost then one can safely conclude that there is no transportation of passengers by road for hire or reward (as mentioned in Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act).
“Maybe under such circumstances, the appellant institution cannot be held to be a ‘Motor Transport Undertaking’ within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Motor Transport Workers Act 1961,” the judges observed.
Authoring the judgment for the Bench, Mr. Justice Subramanian pointed out that an affidavit filed by the petitioner institution was completely silent on the crucial issue as to whether it was collecting any fare or charge from the users of the transportation facilities offered by it.
However, in his counter affidavit, the Deputy Secretary of Labour and Employment department had made a categorical averment that the medical college was offering its transport services on payment and not free of cost.
The averment had not been denied by the college by filing a rejoinder.
Mohamed Imranullah S.
CHENNAI, June 28, 2018 00:00 IST
CMC’s exemption plea rejected as its services are not free
Private hospitals using their own fleet of motor vehicles for transportation of doctors, nurses, other staff and medical students on payment of requisite charges would squarely fall under the definition of ‘motor transport undertaking’ and consequently, liable to follow the provisions of the Motor Transport Workers Act of 1961, the Madras High Court has held.
A Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharana and R. Subramanian passed the ruling while dismissing a writ appeal preferred by the management of Christian Medical College in Vellore. The judges refused to issue a writ of declaration that the 1961 legislation would not apply to the appellant since it was only a medical institution and not a transport undertaking. The Bench held that the college would have to get necessarily registered with the Labour department and scrupulously follow the provisions of the 1961 legislation as long as it collects money from its doctors, staff and students for transporting them in its buses and ambulances and does not offer the transporation service free of charge.
Free of cost
“If it is shown that the buses or the motor vehicles belonging to the appellant are used for transport of students/doctors/employees of the appellant free of cost then one can safely conclude that there is no transportation of passengers by road for hire or reward (as mentioned in Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act).
“Maybe under such circumstances, the appellant institution cannot be held to be a ‘Motor Transport Undertaking’ within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Motor Transport Workers Act 1961,” the judges observed.
Authoring the judgment for the Bench, Mr. Justice Subramanian pointed out that an affidavit filed by the petitioner institution was completely silent on the crucial issue as to whether it was collecting any fare or charge from the users of the transportation facilities offered by it.
However, in his counter affidavit, the Deputy Secretary of Labour and Employment department had made a categorical averment that the medical college was offering its transport services on payment and not free of cost.
The averment had not been denied by the college by filing a rejoinder.
No comments:
Post a Comment