Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Esi Corporation Rep. By Its Regional ... vs P. Srinivasa Reddy And Anr. on 12 June, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(5)ALD829, 2006(4)ALT798
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. Both these appeals arise out of the order, dated 18-11 -2005, passed by the E.S.I. Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in E.I. Appeal No. 8of 2003. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in C.M.A.No. 612 of 2005.
2. The first respondent was employed as a Helper (Boiler Fireman) in M/s. Vishal Chemical Corporation, Jeedimetla. He has been admitted into the scheme of E.S.I, on 11 -11 -1994 on account of his employment and was issued E.S.I, card bearing No. 2548006.
3. On 26-7-1995, the first respondent suffered extensive burn injuries during the course of employment, when he was removing burnt ash from the boiler fire box. His entire face, upto the ear, is said to have been burnt, particularly in the areas of temple and skull. On becoming unconscious, he was shifted to nearby hospital and was discharged after about one month. Thereafter, he was treated as in-patient in E.S.I. Hospital at Erragadda.
4. In the context of extending the benefit Under Section 51 of the Employees State Insurance Act (for short 'the Act'), the petitioner was subjected to examination by the Medical Board on 3-7-1996. The Board certified that the first respondent suffered disability to the extent of 10%. Dissatisfied with that, he approached the Medical Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal rendered its opinion stating that the first respondent did not suffer any disability at all. Thereupon, the first respondent filed E.I. Appeal No. 8 of 2003.
5. The learned Chairman of the E.S.I. Court held that the disability suffered by the first respondent is 40% and accordingly, granted the relief in terms of the relevant provisions. The E.S.I. Corporation filed C.M.A. No. 612 of 2005. Aggrieved by the determination of the disability of the E.S.I. Court, the first respondent filed C.M.A. (SR) 46332 of 2005, claiming that the extent of disability suffered by him is much more than what was determined by the Court.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Corporation-appellant and the learned Counsel for the first respondent-workman.
7. It hardly needs any emphasis that the E.S.I. Act is enacted for the benefit and welfare of the employees. The benefits contemplated under the Act are of various categories, ranging from extending immediate medical facility to providing continuous monetary benefit, almost akin to pension.
8. Chapter V of the Act defines different kinds of the benefits that can be extended to the employees and the procedure to be followed in this regard. The nature and extent of disability suffered by an employee becomes an important factor in the matter of determination of the benefit, to be extended to him. Sub-sections (15-A) and (15-B) of Section 2 of the Act define the terms 'permanent partial disablement' and 'total disablement'. Schedule II of the Act contains a list of various injuries that are per se treated as those resulting in permanent total disablement and permanent partial disablement. However, if one looks at the purport of the definitions, it becomes clear that the list contained in schedule II is not exhaustive, but, illustrative in nature. The Medical Board, which examined the petitioner, found that the disability suffered by the petitioner is 10% and the same was virtually wiped out, by the Medical Appeal Tribunal. The first respondent, in turn, knocked the doors of the E.S.I. Court.
9. In the ordinary course of things, the Tribunals or Courts are to be guided by the specialized agencies in the matter of arriving at conclusions, which require physical verification of the subject matter. The opinions expressed by the Medical Board or for that matter the Medical Appeal Tribunal, need to be respected by the Courts of law, except where they are found to be totally unreliable or perverse.
10. It is not in dispute that the injury suffered by the first respondent was so extensive that the entire upper part of the head was severely burnt so much so, one of the ears has lost its shape. The assertion of the employee that his face became disfigured, i.e. head was burnt to such an extent that no possibility is left for the growth of hair, remained unrebutted. The learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that not only his client lost employment on account of his disability, but he is also finding it difficult to move freely in the society for the fear of humiliation.
11. Howsoever objective, the effort of the Legislature or the Courts, may be, in the matter of calculation of such damages, it would virtually be impossible for one, to evolve a foolproof formula to cover all possible situations. The loss of earning capacity resulting out of an accident itself would depend upon the factors like the nature of injury, the nature of employment and the impact of the injury on the efficiency of the employee. While the same injury may be of hardly any effect on the employee of a particular category, it may result in complete disablement of the person entrusted with a different type of functions.
12. In the instant case, it is rather surprising that even the minimum extent of disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, was reversed by the appellate authority, as though the first respondent continued to be an ordinary person even after the ghastly accident suffered by him.
13. The E.S.I. Court had undertaken extensive and objective discussion in the matter and supported its conclusion with cogent reasons and facts. It has also addressed itself to the underlying object of extending the benefit under the Act and arrived at a conclusion that the first respondent deserves to be extended the benefit by treating that he has suffered disability to the extent of 40%. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same.
14. C.M.A. No. 612 of 2005 is accordingly dismissed.
15. Though the learned Counsel for the first respondent has strenuously contended that the percentage of disability needs enhancement, this Court is not inclined to accede to the request. C.M.A. 522/06 is accordingly dismissed.