Gujarat High Court
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Surendrabhai Shivabhai on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1942/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1942 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
Versus
SURENDRABHAI SHIVABHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMANT B RAVAL(3491) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - Employees State Insurance Corporation against the judgment and order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.S.I. Court") in ESI Second Appeal No. 6 of 2007, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent herein was allowed by assessing the disability of the respondent at 23% and set aside the order of Medical Appeal Tribunal Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:28:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1942/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined in appeal (MAT) No.63 of 2003 assessing the disability of the respondent at 18% and also directed the appellant to pay compensation accordingly.
2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are the respondent is an insured person covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act. On 17.06.2001, due to his own negligence and carelessness, the respondent met with an accident and sustained an injury on his left shoulder. He remained under medical observation for a few days and availed temporary benefits such as medical benefit, temporary disablement benefit, etc., from the Appellant Corporation.
2.1 After recovery in his right shoulder, the Respondent resumed duty and performed his work efficiently. However, with a view to obtain more benefits illegally from the Appellant Corporation, the Respondent preferred an application to refer his case before the Medical Board. The Medical Board physically examined the Respondent, particularly his left shoulder, and after considering the available records, assessed his disability at 23% while simultaneously finding efficiency in his work.
2.3 Being aggrieved by the decision of the Medical Board, the Appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal (MAT) by filing MAT Appeal Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:28:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1942/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined No. 63 of 2003. The MAT, after appreciating the evidence on record, the nature of job/work, and the extent of reduction in efficiency, awarded 18% permanent disability to the Respondent.
2.4 Thereafter, Respondent preferred a Second Appeal before the ESI Court at Ahmedabad, being ESI Second Appeal No. 06 of 2007. The ESI Court, after hearing both the parties and after evaluating the evidence on record vide judgment and award dated 08.02.2008 passed in ESI Second Appeal No. 6 of 2007, has rejected decision of MAT and enhanced the disability from 18% to 23%.
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 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
4. Heard Mr. Sachin Vasavada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Hemant Raval, learned counsel appearing for respondent.
5. Mr. Sachin Vasavada, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the ESI Court is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, erroneous, unreasonable, misconceived and unsustainable in law as well as on facts. He has submitted Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:28:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1942/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures not warranted by facts, as well as presumptions not permitted in law. He has submited that the diverse observations and findings recorded by the ESI Court are without application of mind to the evidence and material available on record, and the same are contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as various High Courts.
5.1 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the ESI Court gravely erred in interfering with the well- reasoned order of the Medical Appellate Tribunal (MAT). He has submitted that the MAT had, after appreciating the nature of work, seriousness of the injury, reduction in the work capacity, and decrease in efficiency, rightly awarded 18% permanent disability and interference with such a finding was wholly unwarranted and unjustified.
5.2 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the ESI Court has failed to appreciate that the Respondent-workman had already received all temporary benefits in the nature of medical benefits and temporary disablement benefits from the Appellant Corporation. He has submitted that after proper assessment of his job profile and reduction in earning capacity, the MAT awarded 18% permanent disability, which was fair, reasonable, and in consonance with Sections 2(15A) and 2(15B) of the Act. He has submitted that the ESI Court Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:28:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1942/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined has gravely erred in enhancing the disability from 18% to 23% without examining the doctors, the employer, or other relevant witnesses, and without making any inquiry regarding actual reduction in earning capacity. He has submitted that even otherwise, the impugned judgment is arbitrary, erroneous, unreasonable, and contrary to the evidence on record. He has submitted that the ESI Court has failed to look into the relevant facts and circumstances and has conveniently ignored the binding provisions under the Act as well as the clear language of Schedule II thereto and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the ESI court may be quashed and set aside and present appeal may be allowed.
6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Raval for the respondent has submitted that the decision of the Medical Board was just, proper, and in consonance with the nature of the injury and its impact on earning capacity, and therefore, the assessment of 23% permanent disability deserves to be restored. He has submitted that the Medical Board, after physical examination and considering the medical records, assessed the claimant's permanent disability at 23%, recording restrictions in movements of the shoulder and difficulty in lifting weights. He has submitted that the ESI Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:28:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1942/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined order looking to the injuries sustained by the respondent and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present appeal and the present appeal be dismissed.
7. I have perused the material and relevant documents placed on record. The issue involved in the present appeal is only to the effect that whether the ESI Court is justified in passing the impugned judgment and order or not?.
7.1 On a comprehensive re-appraisal of the medical evidence and other material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the assessment of 23% permanent disability made by the Medical Assessment Tribunal and affirmed by the ESI Court is unsustainable. The said assessment appears to have been made in a mechanical manner without adequately correlating the physical impairment with the functional disability affecting the earning capacity of the claimant.
8. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court that while assessing compensation, what is material is not the percentage of physical disability simpliciter but its impact on the earning capacity of the injured, and the same has to be determined on the basis of the nature of avocation, the extent of impairment, and the functional restrictions proved by cogent evidence. In Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:28:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1942/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined the present case, no convincing evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate that the injuries have resulted in any substantial loss of earning capacity or have impaired the claimant's ability to discharge his work as before. Though the claimant sustained fracture injuries to the left shoulder and ribs, the medical evidence does not demonstrate any significant or permanent restriction that would disable him from continuing his previous employment or reduce his earning capacity in any substantial manner. The evidence suggests that the claimant resumed his duty after treatment and there is no material to show any reduction in his wages or change in his nature of work on account of the injury.
9. In view of the above facts, this Court finds that the assessment of 23% permanent disability is excessive and not supported by the nature of injuries or their functional effect. Having regard to the medical evidence, the testimony of the claimant, and the overall facts and circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to reassess the permanent disability at 12%. Consequently, the award passed by the ESI Court stands modified to the said extent.
10. In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2008 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad in ESI Second Appeal No. 6 of 2007 is modified to the extent Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:28:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1942/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined that the disability of 23% is reduced to 12% 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, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court. Rest of the order shall remain intact. No order as to costs.
11. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 01:28:59 IST 2025