Regional Director vs Ghanshyam Mohanlal
2025 Latest Caselaw 7103 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Regional Director vs Ghanshyam Mohanlal on 30 September, 2025

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/1996/2012                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1996 of 2012


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

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

                                   Approved for Reporting                       Yes            No
                                                                                                ✓
                       ==========================================================
                                                          REGIONAL DIRECTOR
                                                                Versus
                                                         GHANSHYAM MOHANLAL
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR NIRAV V JOSHI(3806) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                                            Date : 30/09/2025

                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal has been preferred by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") challenging the judgment and order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the learned ESI Court, Ahmedabad in ESI Second Appeal No. 21 of 2010, whereby the learned ESI Court was pleased to allow the appeal of the respondent-employee and enhanced the percentage of permanent disability from 10% to 20%.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1996/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

2. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that the respondent-employee, while on duty, sustained an injury on his right hand. The injury was diagnosed as a fracture to the ulna bone (forearm) extending from the wrist to the elbow. The injured was referred to the Medical Board for assessment of permanent disability, which, after due examination, assessed the disability at 8%. Being dissatisfied, the employee preferred an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal (MAT), which, upon considering the medical evidence, enhanced the disability from 8% to 10%.

2.1 Thereafter, the employee filed a Second Appeal under Section 54-A(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 before the ESI Court at Ahmedabad. The ESI Court, after considering the nature of injury and the oral and documentary evidence, enhanced the percentage of permanent disability from 10% to 20%.

2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment the Corporation has filed present appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Sachin Vasavada, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1996/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

submitted that the judgment and order passed by the ESI Court is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law as well as on facts. He has contended that both the Medical Board and the Medical Appellate Tribunal had assessed the disability at 8% and 10% respectively, based on expert medical evidence and examination of the respondent. However, the ESI Court, without any fresh medical examination or expert opinion, erroneously enhanced the disability to 20%, which is contrary to the settled legal position.

4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the ESI Court failed to appreciate that the injury suffered by the respondent is a non-schedule injury, and therefore, the assessment must strictly be based on expert medical evaluation. He has submitted that the learned ESI Court erred in substituting its own assessment without examining any medical expert or considering functional loss in a scientific manner. Hence, the enhancement from 10% to 20% is wholly unjustified and without any evidentiary basis.

4.2 Learned counsel further argued that the ESI Court ignored the detailed findings of the Medical Appellate Tribunal, which consisted of an Orthopaedic Expert, a representative of the Trade Union, and a Presiding Judicial Officer, all of whom assessed the disability after considering all relevant factors. Therefore, interference

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1996/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

by the ESI Court in such a well-considered finding is impermissible in law.

4.3 Learned counsel for the appellant urges before the Court that the impugned judgment and order enhancing the disability to 20% may be set aside or appropriately modified.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- employee supported the judgment of the ESI Court and submitted that the employee had sustained a serious injury resulting in a fracture to both bones of the right forearm (ulna and radius), for which plating and fixation with screws were performed. He has submitted that due to the said injury, there is permanent restriction in movement (supination and pronation) of the right hand, pain during rotation, and difficulty in lifting heavy objects.

5.1 Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that, considering the nature of the job of the employee, who was engaged in manual and labour-intensive work, the functional disability and loss of earning capacity is higher than what was assessed by the Medical Board or the MAT. He has submitted that the ESI Court has rightly appreciated these aspects while enhancing the disability to 20%.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1996/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

5.2 Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that mere absence of medical witness does not vitiate the finding when the injury and its effect on the earning capacity are evident from the material on record. Hence, the order of the ESI Court enhancing the disability to 20% was just and proper and does not call for any interference.

6. Upon perusal of the record and considering the rival submissions, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent sustained a fracture in the right forearm resulting in certain restriction of movement. The Medical Board, after due examination, assessed the permanent disability at 8%, which was slightly enhanced by the Medical Appellate Tribunal to 10%. Both authorities had the benefit of medical expert assessment and clinical examination.

7. The ESI Court, however, without any further medical evidence or fresh clinical examination, enhanced the disability from 10% to 20% solely on the basis of oral submissions and general observations regarding difficulty in performing daily activities. Such enhancement appears to be excessive and not supported by medical or documentary evidence.

8. It is settled law that while determining permanent disability in cases of non-schedule injuries, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1996/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

assessment must primarily rest on medical evidence and the extent of functional loss relevant to the nature of employment. The ESI Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, cannot substitute medical expertise with mere presumption or subjective interpretation unless there is material to show that the findings of the Medical Board or MAT are perverse or contrary to record.

9. In the present case, there is no material to indicate that the assessment made by the MAT at 10% was erroneous or inadequate. However, considering that the employee is engaged in manual work and some functional limitation persists, this Court is of the view that a moderate enhancement would meet the ends of justice.

10. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the permanent disability at 12% instead of 20% as awarded by the ESI Court.

11. Accordingly the First Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the learned ESI Court, Ahmedabad in ESI Second Appeal No. 21 of 2010 is modified to the extent that the percentage of permanent disability shall stand reduced from 20% to 12%.

12. The respondent-employee is entitled to all consequential benefits payable under the ESI Act @ 12%

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1996/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025

undefined

permanent disability and on the basis of that, the amount of compensation is to be calculated by the Corporation and to be paid to the respondent herein, after proper verification of his bank details and after following due procedure through RTGS/NEFT.. There shall be no order as to costs. Record and proceedings, if received, be sent back to the concerned ESI Court forthwith.

Sd/-

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI