DOCTOR - IF A WORKMAN

 Is a doctor who has been performing duties of technical nature a workman irrespective of the fact whether the hospital is charitable or not, under the Industrial Dispute Act? In Surendra Kumar v. Union of India, the practionner was employed as assistant medical officer Class 2 to treat patients who were employees of the railways and their families. He was also required to meet the administrative requirement where he was in charge of the hospital of a wealth unit. 

The staff was also under his administrative control. On these facts, the division bench of Allahabad High Court held that the duties of the doctor were technical and not supervisory. The Court accordingly held that the doctor was a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. However, the division bench of the Karela High Court in Mar Basellos Medical Mission Hospital v. Dr Joseph Babu held that a senior doctor engaged in diagnosis and treatment of patients was not a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act.

The court gave the following reasons.

1. A post-graduate doctor was engaged at a fairly high salary for treatment of patients as a senior doctor in the department of medicine.
2. His work is essentially to diagnose diseases of patients and treat the same.
3. A senior doctor is always assisted by a team of junior doctors, medical attendants, nurses, etc., and it is the duty of the senior doctor to ensure that the examination of the patient by way of x-ray, blood test, etc., and that the treatment suggested by him is carried out strictly in accordance with his instructions.
4. No one can doubt that any subordinate employee disobeying the doctor's instructions will do so expect at the risk of disciplinary action.

Thus, he was engaged in supervisory and technical work, even if a doctor's work is only technical in nature.

In MM Wadia Charitable Hospital v. (Dr) Umakant Ramchandra Warerkar, the Bombay High Court held that a doctor, though employed and rendering professional services will not be a 'workman' under the Act. The Supreme Court in Workmen of Dima Kuchi Tea Estate v. Dima Kuchi Tea Estate while construing Section 2(s) (as it existed prior to 1956 amendment) held that the duties performed by a medical practionner were of a technical in nature.

NOTE- If you really get the information from this Article then give us like and share also if you did not know that how to calculate gratuity, so quickly see the video below: -