[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Regional Director vs Bhikhabhai Vajubhai Parmar C/O ... on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4453 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Versus
BHIKHABHAI VAJUBHAI PARMAR C/O MANGUBEN M MISTRI
================================================================
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 DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 82 (2) of
the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the ESI Act') by the appellant-original opponent assailing
the judgment and order dated 29.07.2005 passed in ESI Second
Appeal No.08 of 2004 in MAT Appeal No.105 of 2003 by the
learned Judge, Employees' State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemant S. Shah for the
appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Shailesh C. Sharma for the
respondent has remained absent.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
3.1. The respondent herein was an employee of M/s. Industrial
Machinery Manufacturing Private Limited. On 18.06.1998,
while working in the establishment, employee sustained injuries
on four fingers of right hand. The Corporation had made
payment of Temporary Disablement Benefit under the ESI Act
to the injured employee. The respondent was sent to the Medical
Board who assessed the disability at 15%. The order of the
Medical Board was assailed by the respondent herein before the
Medical Appeal Tribunal. Learned Tribunal upheld the
assessment of disability at 15% and dismissed the appeal of the
employee. The order of the learned Tribunal was assailed by the
respondent before the learned ESI Court by way of Second
Appeal. After hearing the parties, learned ESI Court increased
percentage of permanent disability from 15% to 18% and
directed the Corporation to pay compensation accordingly.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
judgment and order, the appellant-Corporation has filed the
present First Appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant, at the outset,
contended that the disability sustained to the employee was
assessed by the Medical Board, who after examining the
medical papers as well as the employee, assessed the disability
at 15% by observing that 'United Fracture Proximal Phalan (R)
middle, ring, & litle finger with stiffness at DIP & PIP joint a
flexion UPE 45° with poor grip'. The employee was also
examined by the experts who are part of the Medical Appeal
Tribunal and on physical examination of the appellant, learned
Tribunal confirmed the assessment of disability at 15%. It is
further contended that the claim of the employee to assess
disability at 30% is without any medical evidence. Learned ESI
Court, without having any contrary medical evidence, increased
the percentage of disability from 15% to 18%. It is further
contended that it is not the jurisdiction of the learned ESI Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
to increase the percentage of disability when the Medical Board
as well as the Medical Appeal Tribunal who are consisting of
team of Medical Experts have assessed the disability of the
employee. Learned ESI Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by
increasing the disability percentage. It is further submitted that
learned ESI Court has completely ignored the medical evidence
and increased the percentage of disability. It is further contended
that the present appeal is assailed only on the aspect of
assessment of disability. Except above, no other submissions are
canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant.
5. Respondent herein has contended before the learned
Tribunal as well as before learned ESI Court that employee
received injuries on four fingers of right hand and the Medical
Board has also opined 'stiffness at DIP & PIP joint poor grip'.
It is also the case of the employee that due to injuries, he cannot
bend his fingers more than 45° and therefore, the claim of the
employee was assessed disability of 30%.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocate for the appellant and also perused Record and
Proceedings. The only limited question which has been raised
by the appellant by proposing following substantial questions of
law.
"A.Whether the Employees' State Insurance Court has jurisdiction to
decide the disability sustained to the injured opponent contrary to the
decision of MB and MAT?
B. Whether the Lower court can go behind the expert opinion, which
suggests a disability to the extent of 15% to the injured?
C. Whether the Lower court can change the disability assessed by the
expert and assessed the disability without any evidence on record?"
7. The question of jurisdiction of learned ESI Court and the
assessment of disability disturbed by the learned ESI Court
without any medical evidence, in my opinion, are the substantial
questions of law. Therefore, I am venturing into some of the
factual aspects for the determination of the questions posed by
learned advocate for the appellant. The respondent-employee
herein met with an accident on 18.06.1998 and sustained
injuries on four fingers of right hand. On examination by the
medical board who are consisting of team of medical experts,
assessed the disability at 15% by observing 'United Fracture
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
Proximal Phalan (R) middle, ring, & litle finger with stiffness at
DIP & PIP joint a flexion UPE 45° with poor grip'. The
assessment of the Medical Board was upheld by the Medical
Appeal Tribunal, who, again is consist of Medical Experts. As it
appears from the order of the Medical Appeal Tribunal, the
employee was physically examined by Medical Assessors. The
employee, during the course of physical examination, did not
disclose any inter-current disease or any previous employment
injury. On examination of the employment injury, the Medical
Assessors found that the disability assessed by the team of
Medical Board is proper and no functional loss sustained by the
employee. Learned ESI Court has no jurisdiction to disturb the
finding of assessment of disability assessed by team of Medical
Experts unless any contrary medical evidence is placed on
record, whereby the assessment of disability by Medical Board
or by Medical Appeal Tribunal is found unreasonable.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, the appellant has been able
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4453/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
to establish that learned ESI Court has exceeded his jurisdiction
in disturbing the finding of team of medical experts. The learned
ESI Court, without any contrary medical evidence led by
employee has increased percentage of disability, which is an
error of law. Therefore, appeal stands allowed accordingly. The
assessment of disability by Medical Board and Medical Appeal
Tribunal of Corporation is upheld. The judgment and order
dated 29.07.2005 passed in ESI Second Appeal No.08 of 2004
in MAT Appeal No.105 of 2003 by learned Judge, Employees'
State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad, is hereby quashed and set
aside.
9. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the learned
Court / Tribunal forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
