In a second appeal under sec. 82 of the ESI Act, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the appeal against a lower appellate court's disability assessment. The High Court held that the lower court's finding was not erroneous based on the prescribed Schedule of disabilities.
The appeal stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FA/3842/1996
1/4
JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL No. 3842 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA:Sd/-
========================================================= 1Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of theconstitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?========================================================= SUJANSINH S SINGH - Appellant(s) Versus
E.S.I. CORPORATION - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS SADHANA SAGARfor Appellant(s) : 1,
MR HEMANT S SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1,
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 06/02/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed
by the Employees' Insurance Court, Ahmedabad in First
Appeal (ESI) No. 27/1995, the present appeal has been
FA/3842/19962/4
JUDGMENT
preferred by the appellant under the provisions of
sec. 82 of the ESI Act, which is in fact a second
appeal. The appeal has been preferred, inter alia, on
the grounds that the appellate court below has failed
to appreciate the evidence on record and has failed to
appreciate that the first, middle and ring finger of
the appellant had been totally amputated during the
accident resulting into permanent disability. It is
also contended that the appellate court below has not
considered the loss and has failed to appreciate that
even the thumb cannot be bent from the second
metacarpal. It is therefore contended that the
appellant is entitled to get 60% disability.
2.Heard learned advocate Ms. Sadhana Sagar for the
appellant. She has referred to the impugned judgment
as well as other record and submitted that the
appellate court below has committed an error in
dismissing the appeal. It was submitted that the
assessment has been made by the Medical Board at 33%
and it is contrary to the Schedule provided. She
referred to para 7 of the judgment for that purpose.
Learned advocate Ms. Sagar has also submitted that the
Schedule which provides for the extent of disability
has been provided in Part II which enumerates the
“List of Injuries Deemed to Result in Permanent
Partial Disablement.”
3.As could be seen from Part II of the ESI Act, at
Sr.No. 14 “loss of three fingers of one hand” has been
provided and the permanent partial disablement is 30%
according to the Schedule. The judgment clearly
FA/3842/19963/4JUDGMENT
refers to the fact that there is no amputation of the
little finger and it has only bent. Similarly, though
there could be injury, there is no amputation or other
injury on the thumb. In these circumstances,
considering the Schedule which provides for 30%
disability in respect of the given disability, the
assessment of permanent partial disability to the
extent of 35% by the appellate court below cannot be
said to be erroneous which would call for any
interference by this Court.
4.The provisions of sec. 82 clearly provides that
in fact such an appeal is a second appeal and the
scope would be limited. Section 82 of the ESI Act
provides as under:
“82. Appeal.-(1) Save as expressly provided in this
section,no appeal shall lie from an order of an
Employees' Insurance Court.
(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an
order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves
a substantial quest.....”
5.Therefore, though the recommendation of the
Medical Board may not be accepted, but the Schedule
itself provides in respect of the injury and the
percentage of disability on the basis of which the
assessment has been made and accepted by the appellate
court below.
FA/3842/19964/4JUDGMENT
6.In the circumstances, there is no substance in
the present appeal and it deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.)
(hn)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate court and the resulting disability assessment required interference by the High Court in a second appeal under sec. 82 of the ESI Act.
Whether the constitutional validity of the Schedule of disabilities in Part II of the ESI Act was doubtful.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sujansinh S Singh
E.S.I. Corporation
Rajesh H. Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court