Gujarat High Court
Regional Director Esi ... vs Shantaben Revaben on 28 August, 2023
Bench: J. C. Doshi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4076/2001 ORDER DATED: 28/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4076 of 2001
==========================================================
REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI CORPORATION
Versus
SHANTABEN REVABEN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 28/08/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. ADMIT. Though served, none appears for the
Respondent.
2. The present appeal under Section 82 of the
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 ('ESI Act' for
short) is preferred by the appellant to assail the
judgment and order dated 18.05.2001 passed by the ESI
Court, Ahmedabad, in ESI Second Appeal No.8/1996
where under the ESI Court has assessed disability
suffered by the respondent at 40% by setting aside
the order dated 22.10.1994 passed by Medical
Appellate Tribunal in MAT Appeal No. 42/1994 where
under the Tribunal has assessed the disability at
30%.
3. I have heard Mr. Sachin D. Vasavada, learned
advocate for the appellant. Though served, none
appears for the respondent.
4. Mr. Vasavada, learned advocate submits that ESI
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4076/2001 ORDER DATED: 28/08/2023
undefined
Court has enhanced the percentage of disability in
absence of any medical evidence ignoring the reasons
and premises of the Medical Board for assessing the
disability of the respondent at 20%. It is his
further submission that the ESI Court has enhanced
the percentage of disability without there being any
evidence. The ESI Court has passed the judgment
purely on conjuncture and surmises without adverting
to reasons assigned by Medical Tribunal. According to
his submission, substantial question of law as
required under Section 82 of ESI Act are involved in
the appeal. He therefore urges that the appeal may be
remitted for fresh consideration of substantial
question of law indicated in the memo of appeal.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned Advocate for the appellant.
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent workman
had preferred an appeal being Appeal No.42/1994 in
the Medical Appellate Tribunal to question the
assessment of 20% disability by the Medical Board. It
is not in dispute that the appellate Tribunal after
considering the evidence placed before it and after
getting the respondent No.2 examined by the Medical
Officer assessed disability at 30%. Respondent
workman was not happy with the enhancement of the
disability made by the Tribunal, and therefore, she
preferred Second Appeal before the ESI Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4076/2001 ORDER DATED: 28/08/2023
undefined
7. The perusal of the impugned judgment of ESI Court
rendered in Second Appeal reveals that the ESI Court
has not at all assigned cogent and convincing reasons
for enhancing the percentage of disability, as
assessed by the Medical Tribunal, from 30% to 40%. It
is eminently clear from the impugned judgment that
the reasons assigned by the ESI Court for enhancing
the disability are purely conjecture and surmises and
de hors any evidence. I am, therefore, of the view
that the impugned judgment needs to be set aside and
the matter needs to be remitted to the ESI Court for
fresh consideration.
8. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds in part.
The impugned judgment and order of the ESI Court is
hereby set aside. The matter is REMITTED to the ESI
Court for fresh consideration after affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance
with law. It is clarified that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The
ESI Court is directed to finally dispose of the
matter as expeditiously as possible but not later
than 31ST MARCH, 2024.
9. Record and Proceedings, if any, be transmitted to
the ESI Court, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
UMESH/-
