Gujarat High Court
Regional Director vs Bhikhabhai Vajubhai Parmar C/O ... on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4453 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Versus
BHIKHABHAI VAJUBHAI PARMAR C/O MANGUBEN M MISTRI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMANT S SHAH(756) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SHAILESH C SHARMA(3450) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 82 (2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Act') by the appellant-original opponent assailing the judgment and order dated 29.07.2005 passed in ESI Second Appeal No.08 of 2004 in MAT Appeal No.105 of 2003 by the learned Judge, Employees' State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemant S. Shah for the appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Shailesh C. Sharma for the respondent has remained absent.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:26:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
3.1. The respondent herein was an employee of M/s. Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Private Limited. On 18.06.1998, while working in the establishment, employee sustained injuries on four fingers of right hand. The Corporation had made payment of Temporary Disablement Benefit under the ESI Act to the injured employee. The respondent was sent to the Medical Board who assessed the disability at 15%. The order of the Medical Board was assailed by the respondent herein before the Medical Appeal Tribunal. Learned Tribunal upheld the assessment of disability at 15% and dismissed the appeal of the employee. The order of the learned Tribunal was assailed by the respondent before the learned ESI Court by way of Second Appeal. After hearing the parties, learned ESI Court increased percentage of permanent disability from 15% to 18% and directed the Corporation to pay compensation accordingly. 3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:26:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined judgment and order, the appellant-Corporation has filed the present First Appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset, contended that the disability sustained to the employee was assessed by the Medical Board, who after examining the medical papers as well as the employee, assessed the disability at 15% by observing that 'United Fracture Proximal Phalan (R) middle, ring, & litle finger with stiffness at DIP & PIP joint a flexion UPE 45° with poor grip'. The employee was also examined by the experts who are part of the Medical Appeal Tribunal and on physical examination of the appellant, learned Tribunal confirmed the assessment of disability at 15%. It is further contended that the claim of the employee to assess disability at 30% is without any medical evidence. Learned ESI Court, without having any contrary medical evidence, increased the percentage of disability from 15% to 18%. It is further contended that it is not the jurisdiction of the learned ESI Court Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:26:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined to increase the percentage of disability when the Medical Board as well as the Medical Appeal Tribunal who are consisting of team of Medical Experts have assessed the disability of the employee. Learned ESI Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by increasing the disability percentage. It is further submitted that learned ESI Court has completely ignored the medical evidence and increased the percentage of disability. It is further contended that the present appeal is assailed only on the aspect of assessment of disability. Except above, no other submissions are canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant.
5. Respondent herein has contended before the learned Tribunal as well as before learned ESI Court that employee received injuries on four fingers of right hand and the Medical Board has also opined 'stiffness at DIP & PIP joint poor grip'.
It is also the case of the employee that due to injuries, he cannot bend his fingers more than 45° and therefore, the claim of the employee was assessed disability of 30%. Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:26:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant and also perused Record and Proceedings. The only limited question which has been raised by the appellant by proposing following substantial questions of law.
"A.Whether the Employees' State Insurance Court has jurisdiction to decide the disability sustained to the injured opponent contrary to the decision of MB and MAT?
B. Whether the Lower court can go behind the expert opinion, which suggests a disability to the extent of 15% to the injured? C. Whether the Lower court can change the disability assessed by the expert and assessed the disability without any evidence on record?"
7. The question of jurisdiction of learned ESI Court and the assessment of disability disturbed by the learned ESI Court without any medical evidence, in my opinion, are the substantial questions of law. Therefore, I am venturing into some of the factual aspects for the determination of the questions posed by learned advocate for the appellant. The respondent-employee herein met with an accident on 18.06.1998 and sustained injuries on four fingers of right hand. On examination by the medical board who are consisting of team of medical experts, assessed the disability at 15% by observing 'United Fracture Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:26:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined Proximal Phalan (R) middle, ring, & litle finger with stiffness at DIP & PIP joint a flexion UPE 45° with poor grip'. The assessment of the Medical Board was upheld by the Medical Appeal Tribunal, who, again is consist of Medical Experts. As it appears from the order of the Medical Appeal Tribunal, the employee was physically examined by Medical Assessors. The employee, during the course of physical examination, did not disclose any inter-current disease or any previous employment injury. On examination of the employment injury, the Medical Assessors found that the disability assessed by the team of Medical Board is proper and no functional loss sustained by the employee. Learned ESI Court has no jurisdiction to disturb the finding of assessment of disability assessed by team of Medical Experts unless any contrary medical evidence is placed on record, whereby the assessment of disability by Medical Board or by Medical Appeal Tribunal is found unreasonable.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, the appellant has been able Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:26:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025 undefined to establish that learned ESI Court has exceeded his jurisdiction in disturbing the finding of team of medical experts. The learned ESI Court, without any contrary medical evidence led by employee has increased percentage of disability, which is an error of law. Therefore, appeal stands allowed accordingly. The assessment of disability by Medical Board and Medical Appeal Tribunal of Corporation is upheld. The judgment and order dated 29.07.2005 passed in ESI Second Appeal No.08 of 2004 in MAT Appeal No.105 of 2003 by learned Judge, Employees' State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad, is hereby quashed and set aside.
9. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned Court / Tribunal forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Tue Dec 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 10 21:26:04 IST 2025