The Regional Director vs K.Pazhaniraja
2021 Latest Caselaw 5753 Mad

                                                                                  C.M.A.No.1053 of 2019

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 04.03.2021

                                                       CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                C.M.A.No.1053 of 2019

                     The Regional Director,
                     Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
                     Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry – 605 004                             ..Appellant

                                                           Vs.
                     1.K.Pazhaniraja
                     2.The Manager,
                       Pondicherry Co-operative Spinning Mill
                       Thiruvandarkoil & Post, Thirubuvanai
                       Puducherry – 605 102                                        ..Respondents

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82(1) of the
                     ESI Act, against the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court
                     (Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court) at Puducherry in ESIOP.No.12
                     of 2010 dated 20.02.2018.


                                      For Appellant    :         Mr.G.Bharadwaj

                                      For Respondents :          R1 – Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan
                                                                 R2 – Not ready in notice




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     1/6
                                                                                C.M.A.No.1053 of 2019

                                                  JUDGMENT

The order dated 20.02.2018 passed in ESIOP.No.12 of 2010 is

under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The Substantial question of law raised by the appellant reads as

under:

“1. Whether the ESI Court in mechanically accepting the report (Ex.C2) of the Medical Board without giving any findings as to the correctness of the said report since the alleged sickness Guillanin Barre Syndrome does not form part of Schedule II of the Act?

2. Whether the ESI Court is correct in deciding the disability as well as earning capacity of the first respondent without deciding the issue of employment injury as contemplated under Section 2(8) of the Act?

3. Whether the ESI Court is correct in directing the appellant to grant benefits as per the disability decided by the Medical Board when one the Doctor of the Medical Board who was examined as RW3 had categorically stated that the alleged Guillanin Barre Syndrome is not employment injury?”

3. The said questions of law raised are relatable to the facts and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.1053 of 2019

circumstances of the case and thus, this Court is of the opinion that no

acceptable substantial question of law is raised, so as to consider the

issues.

4. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant contended that under Section 2(8) of the ESI Act, it is to be

established that the accident occurred during the course of employment

and in the present case, the workman was suffering from some

Neurological issues. Thus, the said Neurological diseases already

existing, could not be a ground to cause an accident and therefore, the

very award of permanent disability benefit is improper and is not in

consonance with the provisions of the Act.

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/workman disputed

the contention by stating that the contentions are baseless. Due to stress

and strain and during the course of employment, the workman sustained

the injury and further, presuming that he has some Neurological issues,

the hard work and stress and strain, aggravated the situation on account

of heavy work, more specifically, during the course of employment. This

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.1053 of 2019

being the factum, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant

deserves no merit consideration.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that an employee may

have certain disease, which will not deprive him fro performing his

routine duties and responsibilities. However, such a disease may got

aggravated on account of stress and strain or due to hardwork. During

the course of employment, mere weakness or Neurological diseases

would not be a ground to decline the disablement benefits to the

workman. The Act being welfare legislation, a pragmatic approach is to

be adopted by the Courts and on account of certain technical reasons or

otherwise, the benefit conferred under the Act cannot be denied to the

employees.

7. In the present case, the ESI Court has rightly proceeded on the

basis of the report submitted by the Medical Board and assessed the loss

of earning capacity. When the ESI Court has considered the report of the

Medical Board and assessed the loss of earning capacity, there is no

reason to interfere with the order passed by the ESI Court as the same do

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.1053 of 2019

not have any infirmity or otherwise. This apart, the appellant could not

able to sustain any acceptable Substantial question of law and therefore,

no further adjudication needs to be entertained as far as the other issues

are concerned.

8. Accordingly, the order dated 20.02.2018 passed in

ESIOP.No.12 of 2010 stands confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal in C.M.A.No.1053 of 2019 is dismissed. No costs.

04.03.2021

kak Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order

To

The Employees Insurance Court, (Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court) Puducherry.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.M.A.No.1053 of 2019

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

kak

C.M.A.No.1053 of 2019

04.03.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/