WP(C) No. 6483 of 2007 · Kerala High Court

W.P.(C)No.6483 of 2007-2-claim petition, which culminated in Ext.P1 order is the contention raised. The petitioner relies on the decision of aDivision Bench of this Court in Mar Baselios MedicalMission Hospital, Kothamangalam v. Dr. JosephBabu C. and Anr. [2010 (1) KHC 525], in which the Division Bench has held that a doctor who is engaged in examination, diagnosis and treatment of patients is not aworkman under the Act. 2. Despite service of notice, the 1st respondent has not chosen to enter appearance and contest the matter.3.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The 1st respondent was a Gynaecologist engaged on daily remuneration of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioner's hospital. As a gynaecologist, the 1st respondent is engaged in the examination, diagnosis and treatment of patients. TheDivision Bench has in Mar Baselios Medical MissionHospital's case held that such a doctor is not a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. That decision W.P.(C)No.6483 of 2007-3-squarely applies to the facts of this case. Therefore, following that judgment, I hold that the 1st respondent is nota workman of the petitioner's hospital and therefore the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent under Section33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable. Accordingly Ext.P1 order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE//True copy//P.A. TO JUDGEshg/