Gujarat High Court
The Regional Director Employees State ... vs Jayeshbhai Shanabhai Dabhi on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3730/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3730 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3730 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION
Versus
JAYESHBHAI SHANABHAI DABHI
==========================================================
Appearance:
SHIVANG P JANI(8285) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 10/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 82(2) of the
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, challenging the
order passed by the learned State Insurance Court,
Ahmedabad, under Section 54(A) of the said Act read
with Rule 20(B) of the Employees' State Insurance
(Central) Rules, 1950, whereby the appeal preferred by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3730/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
the present appellant-company came to be dismissed.
2. It is the case of the present appellant that the insured
person, i.e., the respondent herein, while working with
the company, M/s. Chitra Machineries Pvt. Ltd., met
with an accident on 03.02.2020 and sustained an injury
to the lower part of his left leg. It is stated that
thereafter, the plate was automatically removed from
the drill machine. The respondent underwent medical
treatment in a hospital during the period from
03.02.2020 to 26.06.2020, and even after discharge, he
continued to suffer from pain and swelling. It is further
submitted that the respondent was unable to perform his
routine work without assistance and had difficulty in
walking. In view of the said condition, a reference was
made to the Medical Board under Regulation 72 of the
Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations,
1950, and the respondent appeared before the said
Board, which assessed 0% permanent disability.
Aggrieved by the said assessment, the respondent
preferred an appeal before the Medical Appeal Tribunal
(MAT), being Appeal No. 27 of 2021, on 22.03.2021,
wherein the Tribunal, vide order dated 13.08.2021,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3730/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
assessed 10% permanent disability. Challenging the
aforesaid order, the present appellant preferred a
second appeal before the Employees State Insurance
Court, Ahmedabad being Second Appeal No. 25 of 2023,
which came to be dismissed. The said order is the
subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings
before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Shivang Jani for the
appellant.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Jani submits that the learned
Court has committed an error in dismissing the second
appeal and in upholding the order passed by the Medical
Appeal Tribunal (MAT), which assessed 10% permanent
disability. It is submitted that the said assessment is
abnormally high and not based on proper medical
evidence. Learned Advocate Mr. Jani, therefore,
contends that the learned Court has erred in law as well
as on facts, and hence, the impugned judgment and
order deserve to be interfered with. Accordingly, it is
prayed that the present appeal be allowed.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate for the appellant, and having examined
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3730/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
the provisions of Section 82 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948, which reads as under:-
"82. Appeal.
(1) Save as expressly provided in this section, no appeal shall lie
from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court.
(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an
Employees' Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of
law.
(3) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall
be sixty days.
(4) The provisions of sections 5 and 12 of the 1 [Limitation Act,
1963 (36 of 1963)] shall apply to appeals under this section."
6. From the appeal memo, it is noted that in paragraph 3,
the appellant has framed the substantial question of law
that "Whether the learned Employees' State Insurance
Court, Ahmedabad, was justified in overruling the
judgment of the Medical Board?" In the opinion of this
Court, the above cannot be regarded as a substantial
question of law, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed
on this ground alone. A perusal of the material on
record, particularly the impugned judgment, reveals that
on 03.02.2020, while the respondent was performing his
duties, he met with an accident and sustained an injury
to the lower part of his left leg. It is stated that a plate
was automatically removed from the drill machine,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3730/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/11/2025
undefined
causing cramp and resulting in difficulty in performing
day-to-day work. Admittedly, the Medical Board did not
assess any functional disability. However, upon
examination of the medical records of the respondent,
the Medical Appeal Tribunal assessed 10% functional
disability, which was subsequently upheld by the
Employees' State Insurance Court.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the absence of
any substantial question of law, as well as in the absence
of any merit in the appeal, the same deserves to be
dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2024
Having regard to the order passed in First Appeal No.
3730 of 2025, it is hereby ordered that the Civil Application is
also disposed of in accordance therewith.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
