Dismissed

Esic v. Prem Nath

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2021FAFO/206/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Employees State Insurance Corporation appealed against an order allowing an earlier appeal concerning medical board findings on loss of earning capacity. The court dismissed the appeal as sans merit, noting that the issue was one of fact and that the Appellate Court did not erroneously interfere with the Medical Board's decision. The appeal was rejected without framing questions of law.

What the court decided

AI extract

Esic Vs Prem Nath — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 206 of 1992

¶3

Appellant :- Esic Respondent :- Prem Nath Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Tewari,Rajesh Tandan

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

By way of this appeal the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'ESIC') has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.12.1991 passed by Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur whereby it had allowed the appeal upturning the decision of the medical board in Appeal No.130 of 1991.

¶6

Unfortunately, the medical board awaTrded 1% loss of earning capacity. The medical board's opinion or decision was challenged and the Tribunal modified the said decision and awarded 4% loss of earning capacity.

¶7

While admitting the appeal, no question of law came to be framed as it was an appeal under Section 82 of Employee State Insurance Act, 1945.

¶8

The appeal is taken up for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. without issuing the notice to respondent as it is covered by the judgment of Apex Court and the issue raised is regarding disability which is now answered by the Apex Court in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and this High Court in FAFO 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has held as follows:

¶9

"The grounds urged before this Court are in the realm of finding of facts and not a question of law. As far as question of law is concerned, the aforesaid judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Versus Divisional Manager and another (supra) in paragraph 8 holds as follows "the Workman Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis."

¶10

However, going through the factual scenario and the fact that in employment injuries if the facts proved and the findings are not so perverse, the Appellate Court should not interfere. The Employees Insurance Court cannot be said to have erroneously

¶11

interfered with the decision of the Medical Board.

¶12

With all these factual data, this appeal sans merit and is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.12.2021 A.N. Mishra

Esic v. Prem Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Esic v. Prem Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unionof India Mumbai Vs M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd. New Delhi and Another

Hanuman Das Agarwal Vs Sunil Ahuja and Another

Madan Mohan Dubey and Another Vs United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Narendra Kumar Vs Tirpa Devi

Gopi Chandra and Anothers Vs M/S Rameshwar Dayal Gupta and Others

State of U.P. Vs Dhunna and Others