Gujarat High Court
Regional Director vs Ukabhai Amarabhai on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/452/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 452 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Versus
UKABHAI AMARABHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - Employees State Insurance Corporation against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2014 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.S.I. Court") in Second Appeal (E.S.I.) No. 60 of 2013, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent herein was partly allowed by assessing the disability of the respondent at 40% and set aside the order of Medical Appeal Tribunal in appeal (MAT) No.413 of 2012 assessing the disability of the respondent at 4% and also directed the appellant to pay compensation accordingly.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:41:36 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/452/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are that, on 09.09.2011, when the respondent was on duty, he sustained serious burn injuries 70% to 80% on his body, for which he had to take medical treatment for almost 9 months and thereafter, since he was unable to lift any kind of weight with his hands, he had requested the company to provide him lighter work as he was not able to work on Jack Dying Machine due to his burn injuries. That, when he was examined before the Medical Board, the Medical Board had assessed the disability at 0% and therefore, the respondent had filed Appeal No.413 of 2012 before Medical Appeal Tribunal, Ahmedabad in which the Tribunal had enhanced the disability from 0% to 4%. However, the respondent was not satisfied with the same and being aggrieved with the same he filed the aforesaid Second Appeal before the ESI Court, Ahmedabad, whereby, the ESI Court had quashed and set aside the order of the Tribunal and enhanced the disability from 4% to 40% vide judgment and order dated 02.04.2014 passed in Second Appeal (E.S.I.) No. 60 of 2013.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the ESI Court, the appellant ESI Corporation has filed the present First Appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
4. Heard Mr.Sachin Vasavada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for respondent.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:41:36 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/452/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
5. Learned counsel Mr. Vasavada has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the ESI Court is contrary to law and on facts. He has submitted that the substantial question of law framed that whether the ESI Court has passed legal and justified order by enhancing the disability @ 40% without any medical evidence in respect of the order of Medical Appeal Tribunal @ 4% disability whereas, the Medical Board has passed the order of 0% disability. He has submitted that on perusal of the record and the impugned order passed by the ESI Court, the substantial question of law raised by the appellant is considered to be a need question that without there being any expert medical opinion or without there being any cogent and material evidence whether the ESI Court has right and justified n enhancing he disability from 4% to 40%. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned counsel Mr. Vasavada has urged that he present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the ESI court be quashed and set aside.
6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Upadhyay for the respondent has submitted that the ESI Court has rightly enhanced the disability from 4% to 40% looking to the injuries sustained by the respondent. He has submitted that the respondent was required to take treatment in civil hospital for almost 9 months as indoor patient and thereafter, as outdoor patient. He has submitted that the ESI Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order enhancing the disability from 4% to 40% looking to the injuries and therefore, no Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:41:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/452/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined interference is required to be called for in the present appeal and the present appeal be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. The issue involved in the present appeal is only to the effect that whether the disability considered by the ESI Court is justified in the facts of the case or not. On perusal of the Record and Proceedings, it appears that Medical Board has assessed 0% disability against which, the Medical Appeal Tribunal has considered 4% disability permanent in nature. It also appears that the Medical Board has examined the respondent and though there was specific opinion of the Medical Board that there was permanent disablement in nature with regard to the burn scars found on the body but no functional deficit was mentioned by the Medical Board. Whereas, the Appellate Tribunal after considering the same has recorded 4% disability partial in nature as the burn injuries were already healed as per the doctor's report. It also emerges from the record that the ESI Court after considering the pleadings of both the sides has enhanced the disability from 4% to 40% though there was sufficient evidence recorded by the Medical Board and Appellate Tribunal, without considering the same and without examining the doctor, the ESI Court has passed the impugned judgment and order recording the contentions in para-9 that as the concerned workman has sustained 70% to 80% burn injuries on body as a whole and in para-10 without recording any reasons, the ESI Court after Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:41:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/452/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined considering the submissions of the respondent herein has enhanced the disability from 4% to 40%, which is the subject matter in the present appeal. Considering the facts of the case and considering the evidence produced on record, I am of the opinion that instead of 4%, if we consider 10% disability permanent in nature in the present case, it would sub-serve the interest of justice and hence, the present appeal is required to be partly allowed.
8. In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 02.04.2014 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad in Second Appeal (E.S.I.) No. 60 of 2013 is modified to the extent that the disability of 40% is reduced to 10% and on the basis of that, the amount of compensation is to be calculated by the appellant Corporation and to be paid to the respondent herein, after proper verification and after following due procedure through RTGS/NEFT. Rest of the order shall remain intact. No order as to costs.
9. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:41:36 IST 2025