Basha Alisab Shaikh vs Employees State Insurace ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2340 Bom

    Rane                                             * 1/3 *        FA-256-1997.doc
                                                                          (sr. no.203)
                                                                   Wednesday, 5.5.2016

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                       
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                               
                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 256 OF 1997




                                                              
    Shri. Basha Allisab Shaikh, age about 46,
    Occupation : Service, R/o. 127, Sidheshwar
    Path, Umbarje Trust, Solapur                                      .....Appellant
           V/s.
    Employees State Insurance Corporation, P.M.T.




                                                    
    Commercial Building, Shankarseth Road,
    At & Post Pune-411 044           ig                               .....Respondent


                           ******
                                   
    Ms. Sonia Miskin, Advocate for the appellant.

    Mr. H.V. Mehta, Advocate for the respondent.

                   Coram :-         Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.

5th May, 2016.

JUDGMENT :-

1). This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 22 nd

March, 1996 passed by the Industrial Court, Sholapur dismissing the appeal preferred under Section 54-A(2)(ii) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. By that appeal, the appellant herein had challenged

the order dated 20th October, 1989 passed by the Medical Board certifying that, there was 0% disability on the part of the appellant on account of the injury sustained by him in the incident dated 13 th April, 1999. The appellant was serving as a "Care-Helper" with Narsinggirji Mills. The nature of the duties to be performed by him was of mixing

Rane * 2/3 * FA-256-1997.doc (sr. no.203) Wednesday, 5.5.2016

chemicals like caustic and silicate soda etc. in a tray. On 13 th April, 1989

while he was working in the second shift, the chemicals that he was mixing splashed on his face and eyes. He was immediately given first-

aid treatment and then moved to ESI Hospital. He was unable to attend his duties during the period 14th April, 1989 to 8th May, 1989. He joined his duties on 13th May, 1989.

2). The appellant claimed that, because of the accidental injury, he often felt dizzy and was not able to see the distant objects. Whenever he worked in a bright light, he started getting headache. This according

to him, is a permanent disability and he desired to be compensated for it

under the Employees State Insurance Act. For that purpose, he was examined by the Medical board, which certified that his disablement

was 0%. Being dissatisfied with the certificate, he unsuccessfully appealed to the Industrial Court under Section 54-A(2)(ii) of the Employees State Insurance Act.

3). The appellant claimed that, the accidental injuries have resulted into disability to the extent of 35% and hence he is entitled for

compensation for the disability. The appeal was opposed by the respondent, Corporation contending that the Medical Board is a statutory body consisting of expert doctors. The Board is also an

independent agency, which has on proper examination issued disability certificate and there is no reason for finding fault with the certificate issued. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant had produced the

Medical Certificate obtained by him from a private doctor on 16 th June, 1993. That doctor though prescribed use of spectacles to him, has specifically recorded that no abnormality was detected as far as the eye sight of the appellant is concerned. The lower appellate Court considered both the certificates and the details thereof. The certificate of

Rane * 3/3 * FA-256-1997.doc (sr. no.203) Wednesday, 5.5.2016

the board showed that the cornea of the appellant was clear and there

was no abnormality detected in respect of fundi. The vision of both the eyes was "6/6 i.e. normal". Since this view of the Medical Board is infact

confirmed by the Medical certificate of the private doctor whom the appellant had subsequently consulted, the Industrial Tribunal has correctly dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein. Thus,

there is no infirmity whatsoever in the impugned order. Hence, the First Appeal is dismissed.

(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)