Regional Director vs Rajesh Punjabhai

Gujarat High Court

Regional Director vs Rajesh Punjabhai on 25 September, 2025

                                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/473/2012                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 473 of 2012


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                       ==========================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                 Yes           No

                       ==========================================
                                           REGIONAL DIRECTOR
                                                  Versus
                                            RAJESH PUNJABHAI
                       ==========================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                                       Date : 25/09/2025

                                                       ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Present appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is filed by the appellant - Employees State Insurance Corporation against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Employees' State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (for short "the ESI Court") in ESI Second Appeal No. 41 of 2009 whereby the ESI Court has allowed the appeal.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/473/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined

2. Short facts of the present case are that the respondent herein was working in Spinning Department, Reliance Industry and on 17.03.2008, while the respondent was working, he sustained injury on back side and right leg and he has taken for treatment at Civil Hospital from 17.03.2008 to 29.06.2008. During the treatment, a report of fracture in the right leg and waist was received. That the respondent reported for work on 28.06.2008 after declaring himself fit and was then sent to the Medical Board for assessment of permanent disability. On 20.02.2009, without considering the facts of the case and considering the fracture on the right leg and waist, 18% permanent disability has been assessed.

2.1 Aggrieved by the same, Appeal (M.A.T.) No. 28 of 2009 was filed. The Medical Appellate Tribunal has also filed their appeal, no any reason has been assigned, therefore, the respondent has demanded to assess 100% permanent disability. The Tribunal has assessed 18% disability instead of 100% disability.

2.2 Being aggrieved, the respondent had filed E.S.I. Second Appeal No. 41 of 2009 before the ESI Court, which came to be allowed and assessed 50% disability instead of 18% assessed by the Medical Appeal Tribunal.

3. By filing the present appeal, the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law.

(a) In facts of the case and in view of the ESI Act, Rules and Regulations made thereunder, Whether it is open for the Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:01:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/473/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined ESI Court to assess the disability at different % what has been opined and/or awarded either by Medical Board or by MAT?

(b) In facts of present case and in view of the ESI Act, Rules and Regulations, Whether the ESI Court is right and justified in granting the 50% of the permanent disability ignoring the provisions of section 2(15A) & 2(15B) vis-a-vis Second Schedule of the Act and without leading any evidences and without considering the vital aspect viz.

Reduction in earning efficiency and without considering the nature of work and only on assumption and presumption?

(c) Whether it is right and justified by ESI Court to enhance the % of disability vis a vis reduction in earning capacity without leading any evidence and wither the ESI Court has the jurisdiction to opine against the findings of MAT or Medical Board, which consist expert doctors and medical experts, without examining any medical expert?

(d) Whether the diverse findings and conclusions of the ESI Court are right and justified and based on without leading evidences or they are contrary to the weight of evidence on record and whether the ESI Court is right and justified in ignoring the genuine view of the Medical Board, which are based on evidences and the provisions of the Act?

4. Heard Mr.Sachin Vasavada, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Mr. Sachin Vasavada, learned counsel for the appellant has Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:01:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/473/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the ESI Court is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and facts on record. 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 @ 50% without any medical evidence in respect of the order of Medical Appeal Tribunal @ 5% disability whereas, the Medical Board has passed the order of 18% disability. He has further submitted that the ESI Court ought to have held that the Medical Board had rightly observed about the disability i.e. 0% disability on the basis of cogent and reliable evidences and interference of MAT as well as the ESI Court was not required. He has submitted that the ESI Court ought to have held that since the respondent herein had received all the benefits in nature of temporary benefits, he is not entitled for any further benefits and ought to have rejected the second appeal, preferred by the respondent and ought to have allowed the first appeal preferred by the Corporation. He has further submitted that the ESI Court ought to have held that since the language of Section 2(15A) and 2(15B) is unambiguous and in clear terms and hence the case of the present respondent could not fall under the purview of said section as there is not a reduction in earning capacity, the ESl Court ought not to have enhanced the % of disability and ought to have confirmed the view taken by the Medical Board. He has submitted that the ESI Court has gravely erred in entertaining and allowing the second appeal filed by the respondent herein and also gravely erred while misinterpreting the provisions of the law and enhanced the % of disability. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, Mr. Vasavada, learned counsel has urged that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:01:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/473/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined 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 respondent had received injuries on his right leg and waist when he was on duty, for which he had taken treatment, which fact was not considered by the Medical Board while assessing the disability and therefore, the respondent had approached the Medical Appellate Tribunal by way of filing appeal. He has submitted that the Appellate Tribunal had further referred the respondent for medical examination to concerned Hospital and after considering the report, the Appellate Tribunal has assessed the disability @ 18%, which was not proper and therefore, the respondent has filed Second Appeal before the ESI Court. He has submitted that the ESI Court has rightly enhanced the disability from 18% to 50% 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 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 Appellate Tribunal has considered 18% disability permanent in nature. It also appears Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:01:46 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/473/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined that for the injury sustained by the respondent when he was on duty, the respondent was given treatment at the hospital administered by the appellant Corporation and the Medical Board had also examined the respondent and after going through the report, had assessed the disability at 0%, which was challenged by the respondent before the Medical Appellate Tribunal by way of filing appeal. The Medical Appellate Tribunal had also sent the respondent for medical examination to concerned Hospital, wherein, the respondent was examined by expert doctors and after considering the report of the doctors, the Appellate Tribunal has recorded 18% disability partial in nature. It also emerges from the record that the ESI Court after considering the pleadings of both the sides has enhanced the disability from 18% to 50% though there was sufficient evidence recorded by the Medical Board and Appellate Tribunal, however, without considering the same and without examining the doctor, the ESI Court has passed the impugned judgment and order recording the contentions that the workmen was unable to work properly on account of the injury sustained by him, and without recording any reasons, the ESI Court after considering the submissions of the respondent herein has enhanced the disability from 18% to 50%, 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 50%, if this Court considers 25% 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/473/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/09/2025 undefined

8. In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Employees' State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad in ESI Second Appeal No. 41 of 2009 is modified to the extent that the disability of 50% is reduced to 25% 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.

9. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:01:46 IST 2025