Dismissed

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Mohd. Sayeed

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2022FAFO/803/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the E.S.I.C.'s appeal against a finding granting 30% compensation for an employment eye injury. Relying on SC precedents, the Court held the matter concerned facts, not a substantial question of law, binding deference being owed to concurrent factual findings of courts below.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; so called questions of law were answered against the appellant; interim relief vacated.

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 803 of 1992

¶3

Appellant :- Employees State Insurance Corporation Respondent :- Mohd. Sayeed Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

By way of this appeal the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'ESIC') has felt aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.5.1992 passed by Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur whereby it had allowed the appeal upturning the decision of the medical board in Appeal No.97 of 1991.

¶7

Brief facts are that the Medical Board issued a certificate awarding no loss of earning capacity to the injured-claimant. The injured suffered employment injuries in his right eye resulting into delimitation of vision of right eye. The employment injury was not in dispute. What is in dispute is the grant of compensation considering his employment injury to 30%. Can this be considered to be bad and perverse finding?

¶8

The appeal under Workmen Compensation Act/Employees State Insurance Act has to be viewed very seriously in view of the judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) . The finding of fact is that the injured was an employee who had sustained employment injury and was incapacitated to the tune of 30%.

¶9

I am supported in my view by the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 wherein it has been held that the Court has held as under:

¶10

"15. Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with a view to find out as to whether it involves any substantial question of law or not. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law or not depends upon the facts of each case and needs an examination by the High Court. If the substantial question of law arises, the High Court would admit the appeal for final hearing on merit else would dismiss in limini with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law.

¶11

16. Now coming to the facts of this case, we find that the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions set out above. In other words, in our view, the Commissioner decided all the material questions arising in the case properly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and rightly determined the compensation payable to the respondent. It was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High Court on facts.

¶12

17. In this view of the matter, the findings being concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below are binding on this Court. Even otherwise, we find no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. We accordingly uphold these findings."

¶13

This Court, recently in F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has followed the decision in Golla Rajana (Supra) and has held as follows:

¶14

"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."

¶15

In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The so called questions of law framed by the Insurance Company are answered against it. In fact the substantial questions of law raised are infact the questions of fact.

¶16

Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.1.2022 Mukesh

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Mohd. Sayeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Mohd. Sayeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.S.I.C. Vs Ram Dularey

Smt. Usha Devi Vs U.P.S.R.T.C.

U.P.State Road Transport Corp. Meerut Vs Krishna Pal

Esic Vs a. Sanwant

Shiv Shanker and Another Vs Jagat Prakash Sharma and Others

Smt. Bhagwan Devi and Others Vs Shri Shailendra Jain and Another