Gujarat High Court
Regional Director vs Khemraj Lalji on 1 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2779/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2779 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Versus
KHEMRAJ LALJI
==========================================================
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 HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 01/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "ESI Act") against the judgment and order dated 14.02.2006 passed by the learned Employees' State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the "ESI Court") in ESI Second Appeal No. 25 of 2005, Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2779/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined whereby the learned ESI Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Corporation and confirmed the order dated 10.03.2005 passed in MAT Appeal No. 18 of 2005, by which the Medical Appellate Tribunal had assessed the disability of the workman at 45%.
2. The facts in brief are that the respondent - insured workman, holding Insurance No. 37-4328212, was employed with Vishal Intermediate Pvt. Ltd. During the course of his employment, he sustained injuries in an accident. Due to the said injuries, he remained under temporary disablement from 21.02.1996 to 03.05.1996 and was paid temporary disablement benefit under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act.
2.1 The Medical Board, after examining the respondent workman observed that he had suffered amputation of right thumb, deformity in index and middle fingers, stiffness in ring finger and partial loss of the little finger, and accordingly assessed permanent partial disablement at 45%. The Medical Board, therefore, issued its report certifying 45% loss of earning capacity.
2.2 Being dissatisfied with the assessment of 45%, the respondent workman preferred an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal (M.A.T.) being Appeal No. 18/2005. The M.A.T., after due consideration and physical examination by a panel consisting of five members Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2779/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined including two expert doctors, reassessed the permanent disablement at 60% (MB 45% + MAT 15%), and thereafter, finalized it at 20% permanent partial disablement as per the schedule under the E.S.I. Act.
2.3 The Corporation, being dissatisfied with the enhancement of the assessment by the M.A.T., preferred the ESI Second Appeal No. 25 of 2005 before the ESI Court.
2.4 The ESI Court after hearing both the parties and after evaluating the evidence placed on record has dismissed the said Second Appeal filed by the corporation and confirmed the order passed in Appeal (MAT) No. 18 of 2005.
2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 14.2.2006 passed the ESI Court, the appellant corporation has preferred present appeal.
3. Heard Mr.Hemant S. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Medical Board had, after personally examining the respondent workman, rightly assessed the permanent partial disability at 45%. He has also submitted that the M.A.T. has, without any supporting evidence or valid Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2779/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined justification, enhanced the disability to 60% (i.e., 20% more than assessed by the Board). Therefore, the order passed by the M.A.T. is contrary to medical evidence and requires to be set aside, and the assessment made by the Medical Board should be restored.
4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the ESI Court has committed error in not considering that the report made by the Medical Board is justified and is in accordance with the injuries sustained to the employee as per the scheduled. He has submitted that the ESI Court has committed error in considering and confirming the disability assessed by the Medial Appellate Tribunal which is without assigning any reason hence, the disability assessed by the Medical Board is required to be confirmed. He has submitted that impugned judgment and order passed by the ESI Court may be quashed and set aside and present Appeal may be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent sustained serious injuries during the course of employment resulting in amputation of right thumb, complete loss of two fingers, deformity of the third finger, and fracture and stiffness of the fourth finger, due to which his right hand became completely non-functional. He has submitted that the M.A.T. had rightly enhanced the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2779/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined percentage of permanent disability considering the physical condition of the respondent and the loss of earning capacity, and that the order of the ESI Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference.
5.1 Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no error in the order of the ESI Court and the ESI Court has rightly rejected the Second Appeal filed by the corporation. He has submitted that there is no need to interfere in the judgment and order passed by the ESI Court and present appeal may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed.
6. I have gone through the relevant material and documents produced on record. I have also perused the record and proceedings as well as impugned judgment and order passed by the ESI Court.
7. It is undisputed that the injuries sustained by the respondent workman arose out of and in the course of employment, and are covered under Schedule II of the E.S.I. Act as "scheduled injuries." On careful consideration of the record and proceedings, it clearly appears that the Medical Board, which is a statutory and expert body constituted under the Employees' State Insurance Act, had personally examined the respondent- insured employee soon after the accident and assessed 45% permanent partial disability strictly in accordance Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2779/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined with the nature of injuries sustained and as per the Schedule appended to the ESI (Central) Rules, 1950. The said assessment is supported by medical evidence and based on the loss of thumb, deformity of the index and middle fingers, stiffness of the ring finger, and partial loss of grip and earning capacity.
8. It further appears that the Medical Appellate Tribunal (MAT) has enhanced the disability to 60% without recording any detailed reasons or medical justification. The order of the MAT does not indicate any fresh medical evidence, deterioration of injury, or expert opinion which could warrant enhancement of disability beyond 45%. Therefore, the order of the MAT suffers from non- application of mind and lack of proper reasoning.
9. Similarly, the ESI Court has failed to appreciate that the assessment made by the Medical Board was based on scientific evaluation and within the statutory framework, whereas the MAT's order is not supported by any expert basis. The ESI Court, instead of mechanically confirming the MAT's order, ought to have considered that the Medical Board's assessment was more reliable and in conformity with the provisions of law.
10. In view of the above observations, the order dated 10.3.2005 passed by the MAT in Appeal (MAT) No. 18 of 2005 as well as order passed dated 14.2.2006 passed by Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2779/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined the learned ESI Court in ESI Second Appeal No.25 of 2005, confirming the order of the Medical Appellate Tribunal, are hereby quashed and set aside. The assessment of disability made by the Medical Board at 45% permanent partial disability is hereby confirmed in accordance with Scheduled-II of the ESI Act. The appeal filed by the appellant-Corporation is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.
11. Hence, the respondent-employee is entitled to monthly disability benefits under the ESI Act at the rate of 45% permanent disability. The Corporation shall calculate the amount of such benefits on the basis of 45% permanent disability and pay the same to the respondent- employee after proper verification of his bank details and after following due procedure through RTGS/NEFT. There shall be no order as to costs. The record and proceedings, if received, shall be transmitted back to the concerned ESI Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 07:27:38 IST 2025