Gujarat High Court
E.S.I.C vs Lukman Habibulla on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3498/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3498 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
E.S.I.C.
Versus
LUKMAN HABIBULLA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HEMANT B RAVAL(3491) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - Employees State Insurance Corporation against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2007 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the E.S.I. Court") in ESI Second Appeal No. 65 of 2005, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent herein was partly allowed by assessing the disability of the respondent at 7% and set aside the order of Medical Appeal Tribunal in appeal (MAT) No.80 of 2005 assessing the disability of the respondent at 5% and also directed the appellant to pay compensation accordingly.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 06 01:49:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3498/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined
2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are as under :
2.1 That, the respondent was an insured person and covered under the ESI Act. That, due to his own negligence and carelessness, the respondent herein, met with an accident and sustained minor injury in his right eye. That, he remained under medical observations from 29.12.2003 to 22.04.2004 and enjoyed all temporary benefits viz. Medical benefit, temporary disablement benefits etc,. That, after getting recovery in his eyes, the respondent resumed his duty and started his work with efficient manner. However, to enjoy the more benefits illegally from the appellant Corporation, the respondent herein preferred an application to refer his case before the Medical Board and accordingly, Medical Board physically examined him and his eyes and after considering all the records available with them, the Medical Board assessed with 0% of disability and found efficiency in his work. It will not be out of place to mention herein that the cataract operation / minor surgery was carried out / performed on his both eyes.
That, only because of cataract operations in both the eyes, his vision reduced to some extent.
2.2 Being aggrieved with the order of the Medical Board, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal (for short "the MAT") and the MAT, without appreciating evidences on the record, nature of job/work, extent of reduction in efficiency etc., only on humanitarian ground, awarded 5% of permanent disability. Being aggrieved by the order of the MAT, the opponent herein also preferred Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 06 01:49:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3498/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined second appeal being Second Appeal No. 65 of 2005 against the order of the MAT and further prayed to enhance his claim. However, with utter surprise to the appellant herein, the ESI Court, without applying its mind, without leading any kind of evidences and without any kind of inquiry and conveniently ignored the provisions of the law and clear and unambiguous language of Section 2(15A) and (15B) of the Act, enhanced the % of disabilities from 5% to 7% vide its judgment and order dated 09.01.2007.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the ESI Court, the appellant ESI Corporation has filed the present First Appeal under Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
4. Heard Mr. Sachin Vasavada, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Hemant Raval, learned counsel appearing for respondent.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Vasavada has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the ESI Court is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and facts on record. He has submitted that the substantial question of law framed that whether the ESI Court has passed legal and justified order by enhancing the disability @ 7% without any medical evidence in respect of the order of Medical Appeal Tribunal @ 5% disability whereas, the Medical Board has passed the order of 0% disability. He has submitted that the Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 06 01:49:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3498/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined ESI Court ought to have observed and led the evidences with regard to the nature of the work, seriousness of the injury, reduction in the work capacity, decrease in work efficiency due to the injury etc., and ought to have reached to the conclusions. He has submitted that the ESI Court ought to have considered that vision was alleged to have reduced only because of cataract and not because of any kind of injury. It is further submitted that only on that ground ESI Court ought to have rejected the application of the present respondent. He has further submitted that the ESI Court ought to have held that the Medical Board had rightly observed about the disability i.e. 0% disability on the basis of cogent and reliable evidences and interference of MAT as well as the ESI Court was not required. He ash submitted that the ESI Court ought to have held that since the respondent herein had received all the benefits in nature of temporary benefits, he is not entitled for any further benefits and ought to have rejected the second appeal, preferred by the respondent and ought to have allowed the first appeal preferred by the Corporation. He has further submitted that the ESI Court ought to have held that since the language of Section 2(15A) and 2(15B) is unambiguous and in clear terms and hence the case of the present respondent could not fall under the purview of said section as there is not a reduction in earning capacity, the ESl Court ought not to have enhanced the % of disability and ought to have confirmed the view taken by the Medical Board. He has submitted that the ESI Court has gravely erred in entertaining and allowing the second appeal filed by the respondent herein and also gravely erred while misinterpreting the provisions of the law Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 06 01:49:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3498/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined and enhanced the % of disability. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned counsel Mr. Vasavada has urged that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the ESI court be quashed and set aside.
6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. Raval for the respondent has submitted that the respondent had received injuries on his left eye when he was on duty, for which he had taken treatment, which fact was not considered by the Medical Board while assessing the disability at 0% and therefore, the respondent had approached the Medical Appellate Tribunal by way of filing appeal. He has submitted that the Appellate Tribunal had further referred the respondent for medical examination to Bapunagar General Hospital and after considering the report, the Appellate Tribunal has assessed the disability @ 5%, which was not proper and therefore, the respondent has filed Second Appeal before the ESI Court. He has submitted that the ESI Court has rightly enhanced the disability from 5% to 7% looking to the injuries sustained by the respondent and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present appeal and the present appeal be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. The issue involved in the present appeal is only to the effect that whether the disability considered by the ESI Court is Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 06 01:49:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3498/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined justified in the facts of the case or not. On perusal of the Record and Proceedings, it appears that Medical Board has assessed 0% disability against which, the Medical Appellate Tribunal has considered 5% disability permanent in nature. It also appears that for the injury sustained by the respondent when he was on duty, the respondent was given treatment at the hospital administered by the appellant Corporation and the Medical Board had also examined the respondent and after going through the report, had assessed the disability at 0%, which was challenged by the respondent before the Medical Appellate Tribunal by way of filing appeal. The Medical Appellate Tribunal had also sent the respondent for medical examination to Bapunagar Hospital, wherein, the respondent was examined by expert doctors and after considering the report of the doctors, the Appellate Tribunal has recorded 5% disability partial in nature. It also emerges from the record that the ESI Court after considering the pleadings of both the sides has enhanced the disability from 5% to 7% though there was sufficient evidence recorded by the Medical Board and Appellate Tribunal, however, without considering the same and without examining the doctor, the ESI Court has passed the impugned judgment and order recording the contentions in para-4 that the workmen was unable to see from his left eye on account of the injury sustained by him, and in para-7 without recording any reasons, the ESI Court after considering the submissions of the respondent herein has enhanced the disability from 5% to 7%, which is the subject matter in the present appeal. Considering the facts of the case and considering the evidence produced on record, I am of the Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 06 01:49:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3498/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined opinion that instead of 7%, if we consider 6% disability permanent in nature in the present case, it would sub-serve the interest of justice and hence, the present appeal is required to be partly allowed.
8. In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 09.01.2007 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad in ESI Second Appeal No. 65 of 2005 is modified to the extent that the disability of 7% is reduced to 6% and on the basis of that, the amount of compensation is to be calculated by the appellant Corporation and to be paid to the respondent herein, after proper verification and after following due procedure through RTGS/NEFT, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court. Rest of the order shall remain intact. No order as to costs.
9. Record & Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 06 01:49:20 IST 2025