Gujarat High Court
The Regional Director Employees State ... vs Jaykishan Vishrambhai Ravat C/O ... on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2606/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2606 of 2010
==========================================================
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
Versus
JAYKISHAN VISHRAMBHAI RAVAT C/O SAVITRIBEN JAYKISHAN RAVAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HEMANT S SHAH(756) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 12/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. This Appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the "ESI Act"), challenging the judgment and order dated 22.07.2009 passed by the learned Employees' State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad, in E.S.I. Second Appeal No.12 of 2009 in Appeal (MAT) No.75 of 2007, whereby the Second Appeal came to be dismissed and the disablement of 20% assessed by the MAT was confirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent- Jaykishan Vishrambhai Ravat was an employee of M/s.Victor Steel Industries and was registered with the ESI Corporation under registration No.37-4293873. During the course of his employment, on 29.04.2006, he sustained an injury to his right eye due to accident. The ESI Corporation granted temporary disablement benefit to the respondent from 29.04.2006 to 07.07.2007. Thereafter, he was referred to the Medical Board constituted under the ESI Act for the Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:30:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2606/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined examination. Upon examination, the respondent was assessed 3% physical disablement and BIR-II certificate was issued accordingly.
2.1 The respondent challenged the said assessment of 3% physical disablement by filing an Appeal before the Medical Appeal Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short "MAT"), being MAT No.75 of 2007. By order dated 23.01.2008, the MAT assessed the physical disablement at 20%. Being aggrieved, the ESI Corporation filed Second Appeal before the ESI Court. As stated hereinabove, the said Second Appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present First Appeal is filed by the ESI Corporation.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hemant Shah for the appellant. Though served, none appeared for respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Hemant Shah for the appellant would submit that the learned ESI Court has committed a serious error in confirming 20% physical disablement, despite the respondent workman himself claiming that the physical disablement is limited to 10%. He would further submit that, apart from the aforesaid manifest error, the ESI Court also erred in proceeding with the matter despite the coram not being complete. The assessment carried out by MAT, in absence of properly constituted coram, was not sustainable; yet the same has been upheld by the Court, which reflects a serious lapse on the part of the ESI Court in passing the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Shah prayed that the Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:30:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2606/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined present appeal be allowed.
5. At the outset, I refer to Section 82(2) of the ESI Act, which is reproduced as under:-
82(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."
6. In view of Section 82(2) of the ESI Act, an Appeal before the High Court from an order of ESI Court is maintainable only if it involves a substantial question of law. The expression "substantial question of law" appearing in Section 82(2) of the ESI Act is akin to that used in Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, which governs Second Appeal. However, there is a subtle distinction, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the time of admission of Second Appeal, the Court is required to formulate the substantial question of law as a precondition for its admission. On the contrary, under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act, the Court may admit the appeal; however, it cannot decide the same on merits or on questions of fact determined by the learned Trial Court unless it is established that the appeal involves a substantial question of law. The interpretation of the expression "substantial question of law" as defined under Section 100 of the CPC pari pasu applies to said expression existing in Section 82(2) of the ESI Act. Thus, a substantial question of law would arise where the judgment under challenge is shown to be contrary to settled legal principles, or where an arguable or debatable point of law arises which has not been previously decided.
Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:30:08 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2606/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined
7. To be 'substantial' a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law 'involving the case', there must first be a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by Court of facts, and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. Therefore, it will depend on facts and circumstances of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not, the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.
8. The Bombay High Court at Goa, in the case of Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. The Mormugao Handling Agents Association reported in 2009 Supreme(Bom)1353, in paragraphs 31 and 32, has discussed the scope and ambit of a substantial question of law as implied in Section 82(2) of the ESI Act, as under:-
"31.So long it is not shown that the findings under challenge in present appeal under Section 82 of ESI Act, are contrary to law or facts on record or otherwise perverse, any interference is simply impermissible.
32. When in any law where an appeal on facts alone is available, interference even in such an appeal would not be permissible unless findings are shown to be erroneous due to any illegality. Just because another opinion on facts is possible, Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:30:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2606/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined interference shall not be permissible."
9. Thus, the appellant challenged the judgment passed by the ESI Court, contending that interference is required on the ground that a substantial question of law is involved in the matter. However, in absence of such question, the order cannot be interfered with merely because it is alleged to be perverse on factual aspect.
10. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Motor & General Finance Limited Vs. Director General & Anr. reported in 2025 Supreme Court (Online)(Del) 9485 reiterated the scope of appeal under Section 82(2) of the Act, observing that it is confined to substantial question of law. In para 11, it is held as under:-
"11.The scope of an appeal under Section 82(2) is confined to substantial questions of law. The findings recorded by the EIC regarding the nature of the establishment, wage records, admissibility of documents, and credibility of witnesses are pure findings of fact. The petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or misapplication of legal principles warranting interference under this limited appellate jurisdiction."
11. It is an admitted position that the employee suffered an eye injury during the course of employment. He was initially treated as having temporary disablement by the ESI Corporation for a certain period and thereafter referred to the Medical Board for assessment of permanent physical disablement. A certificate containing 3% physical disablement of the eyes, along with BIR-II Certificate, was issued. Subsequently, the MAT consisting of a specialist Doctor and other members, examined the matter in appeal proceedings and found that the vision is reduced to 6/6. Accordingly, a Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:30:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2606/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined certificate was issued as record in Appeal (MAT) No.75 of 2007. The learned ESI Court referred to Schedule II of the ESI Act, particularly, Item No.32, and found that the nature of the injury sustained by the workman statutorily has been given 30% physical disablement. Item No.32 reads as under:-
"32. Loss of vision of one eye without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the other being normal"
12. The loss of vision in one eye, without any complication affecting the eyeball, is to be treated as a case where the eyeball remains normal. In view of the above, the submission of learned advocate Mr.Shah is that the ESI Court has committed an error in upholding 70% disablement and such assessment of physical disablement is unsustainable. While the employee may be entitled to certain benefits based on physical disablement, the MAT as well as the ESI Court, though acting in favour of the employee, cannot ignore the statutory mandate. Therefore, according to this Court, even the assessment of 20% physical disablement appears illogical, and it ought to have been 30% as per the statutory provision. However, since the employee has not challenged the order passed by the ESI Court as well as the MAT, the finding of the learned Court below accepting 20% physical disablement deserves no interference. Another submission is that, in the absence of corneal damage, no physical disablement could have been assessed. It is on record that Dr. Prabhakar, who was a member of the Board and required to participate in the assessment, was absent. Despite the absence of a specialist doctor, the physical disablement was assessed and a certificate was issued.
Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:30:08 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2606/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined
13. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no question arises which requires further consideration as an arguable point or that has not been previously decided. Thus, in the absence of any "substantial question of law", the present First Appeal filed under Section 82 is not maintainable. Before parting with the order, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ESI Corporation Vs. M/s Radhika Theatre reported in , wherein the object and purpose of the ESI Act have been considered. In Para 6 and 6.1 read as under:
"6.While answering the aforesaid issues/questions the object, purpose and preamble of the ESI Act is required to be referred to and considered. The Preamble of the ESI Act is as under: -
"An Act to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provisions for certain other matters in relation thereto."
6.1 Thus, the ESI Act being a social welfare legislation, any interpretation which would lean in favour of the beneficiary should be given. The object and purpose of the ESI Act has been elaborately considered by this Court in the case of Bangalore Turf Club Limited (supra). After considering catena of earlier decisions under the ESI Act, it is observed and held that ESI Act should be given liberal interpretation and should be interpreted in such a manner so that social security can be given to the employees. In paragraph 16 to 21, it is observed and held as under: -
"16. The primary rule of interpretation of statutes may be the literal rule, however, in the case of beneficial legislations and legislations enacted for the welfare of employees, workmen, this Court has on numerous occasions adopted the liberal rule of interpretation to ensure that the benefits extend to those workers who need to be covered based on the intention of the legislature.
17. The ESI Act is a welfare legislation enacted by the Central Government as a consequence of the urgent need for a scheme of health insurance for workers. It would be Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:30:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2606/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined beneficial to reproduce the Preamble of the ESI Act in this context. It is as under:
"An Act to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto"
18. In ESI Corpn. v. Francis De Costa [1993 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 195] , this Court held that : (SCC pp. 105-06, paras 5-6) "5. The Act seeks to cover sickness, maternity, employment injury, occupational disease, etc. The Act is a social security legislation. It is settled law that to prevent injustice or to promote justice and to effectuate the object and purpose of the welfare legislation, broad interpretation should be given, even if it requires a departure from literal construction. The court must seek light from loadstar Articles 38 and 39 and the economic and social justice envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution which would enliven meaningful right to life of the worker under Article
21. The State is enjoined under Article 39(e) to protect the health of the workers, under Article 41 to secure sickness and disablement benefits and Article 43 accords decent standard of life. Right to medical and disability benefits are fundamental human rights under Article 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7(b) of the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Right to health, a fundamental human right stands enshrined in socio-economic justice of our Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Concomitantly right to medical benefit to a workman is his/her fundamental right. The Act seeks to succour the maintenance of health of an insured workman. The interpretative endeavour should be to effectuate the above. Right to medical benefit is, thus, a fundamental right to the workman.
6. Moreover, even in the realm of interpretation of statutes, rule of law is a dynamic concept of expansion and fulfilment for which the interpretation would be so given as to subserve the social and economic justice envisioned in the Constitution. Legislation is a conscious attempt, as a social direction, in the process of change. The fusion between the law and social change would be effected only when law is introspected in the context of ordinary social life. Life of the law has not been logic but has been experience. It is a means to serve social purpose and felt necessities of the people. In times of stress, disability, injury, etc. the workman needs statutory protection and assistance. The Act fastens in an insured employment, statutory obligation on the employer and the employee to contribute in the prescribed proportion and manner towards the welfare fund constituted under the Act (Sections 38 to 51 of the Act) to provide sustenance to the workmen in their hours of need, Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:30:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2606/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined particularly when they become economically inactive because of a cause attributable to their employment or disability or death occurred while in employment. The fact that the employee contributed to the fund out of his/her hard-earned wages cannot but have a vital bearing in adjudicating whether the injury or occupational disease suffered/contracted by an employee is an employment injury. The liability is based neither on any contract nor upon any act or omission by the employer but upon the existence of the relationship which employer bears to the employment during the course of which the employee had been injured. The Act supplants the action at law, based not upon the fault but as an aspect of social welfare, to rehabilitate a physically and economically handicapped workman who is adversely affected by sickness, injury or livelihood of dependents by death of a workman."
19. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, in reference to the ESI Act, in Transport Corpn. of India v. ESI Corpn. [(2000) 1 SCC 332 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 121] , held that : (SCC pp. 357- 58, paras 27-28) "27. Before parting with the discussion on this point, it is necessary to keep in view the salient fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to provide benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. It is enacted with a view to ensuring social welfare and for providing safe insurance cover to employees who were likely to suffer from various physical illnesses during the course of their employment. Such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intention underlying its enactment. When two views are possible on its applicability to a given set of employees, that view which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it. ...
28. Dealing with this very Act, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah [AIR 1964 SC 1272] speaking through Gajendragadkar, J., (as he then was) held, accepting the contention of the learned counsel, Mr Dolia that : (AIR p. 1277, para 10) '10. ... It is a piece of social legislation intended to confer specified benefits on workmen to whom it applies, and so, it would be inappropriate to attempt to construe the relevant provisions in a technical or a narrow sense. This position cannot be disputed. But in dealing with the plea raised by Mr Dolia that the section should be liberally construed, we cannot overlook the fact that the liberal construction must ultimately flow from the words used in the section. If the words used in the section are capable of two constructions one of which is shown patently to assist the achievement of Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:30:08 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2606/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined the object of the Act, courts would be justified in preferring that construction to the other which may not be able to further the object of the Act.'"
20. In Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn. [Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 573] , it was observed that :
(SCC p. 66, para 20) "20. The Employees' State Insurance Act is a beneficial legislation. The main purpose of the enactment as the Preamble suggests, is to provide for certain benefits to employees of a factory in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. The Employees' State Insurance Act is a social security legislation and the canons of interpreting a social legislation are different from the canons of interpretation of taxation law. The courts must not countenance any subterfuge which would defeat the provisions of social legislation and the courts must even, if necessary, strain the language of the Act in order to achieve the purpose which the legislature had in placing this legislation on the statute book. The Act, therefore, must receive a liberal construction so as to promote its objects."
21. The legislature enacted the ESI Act to provide certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity in case of female employees, employment injury and to make provision in certain other matters in relation thereto. The provisions of the ESI Act apply to all the factories other than seasonal factories. The State Government with the approval of the Central Government is authorised to make the provisions of the ESI Act applicable to any other establishment or establishments. The provisions of the ESI Act provide that all employees in factories or establishments to which the ESI Act applies shall be insured in the manner provided under the ESI Act. Since the ESI Act is passed for conferring certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury, it is necessary that the ESI Act should receive a liberal and beneficial construction so as to achieve legislative purpose without doing violence to the language of the enactment."
14. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the object and purpose of ESI Act, this Court does not find the present First Appeal to be anything more than an attempt on the part of the ESI Corporation to avoid its liability.
Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:30:08 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2606/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/03/2026 undefined
15. In the premises of the aforesaid reasons, the present First Appeal stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court.
16. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANOJ Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Tue Mar 24 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 22:30:08 IST 2026