Gujarat High Court
Employees vs Ganpat on 31 January, 2011
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/38/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 38 of 2011
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 211 of 2011
In
FIRST APPEAL No. 38 of 2011
======================================
EMPLOYEES
STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
GANPAT
KARSHANBHAI PARMAR - Defendant
======================================
Appearance :
MR
SACHIN D VASAVADA for the Appellant.
None for the
Defendant.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 31/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Draft amendment is allowed.
2. The present appeal under Section 82 of Employees' State Insurance Act,1948, has been preferred by the appellant- Employees State Insurance Corporation challenging the impugned judgement and award dated 15/10/2010 passed by Employees' State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the ESI Court") in ESI Second Appeal No.32/2009 as well as order dated 29/06/2009 passed by Medical Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in MAT Appeal No.25/2009, by which, Medical Appellate Tribunal has quashed and set aside the finding of the Medical Board assessing disability of the workman at 0% and assessed disability of the workman at 15%.
3. It was the case on behalf of the respondent - original workman that while he was in service, he sustained injury in his left eye and, therefore, the case of the respondent - workman was referred to the Medical Board and the Medical Board assessed disability of the workman at 0% by holding that loss of vision was not due to employment injury but it was due to Senile Cataract operation of the workman in his left eye. It appears that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decision of the Medical Board assessing disability of the workman at 0%, the workman preferred Appeal before Medical Appellate Tribunal being MAT Appeal No.25/2009 and after through physical examination by the Tribunal, the Medical Appellate Tribunal allowed the said appeal and assessed disability of the workman at 15%. Being aggrieved by and disability with the order dated 29/06/2009 passed by the Medical Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in MAT Appeal No.25/2009, the appellant has preferred the Second Appeal before ESI Court and ESI Court by impugned judgement and award dated 15/10/2010 dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgement and order passed by Medical Appellate Tribunal assessing disability of the workman at 15%.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the First Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad as well as ESI Court in ESI Second Appeal assessing disability of the workman at 15%, the appellant - Employees' State Insurance Corporation has preferred the present First Appeal.
4. Mr.Vasavada, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that First Appellate Tribunal as well as ESI Court have materially erred in assessing disability of the workman at 15%. It is submitted that as such no reasons have been given by the First Appellate Tribunal in assessing disability of the workman at 15%. It is submitted that as such the finding given by the Medical Board was on examination of the workman by expert Doctors and having found that the workmen has not lost his vision due to employment injury and it was specifically observed by Medical Board that the workman was operated for Senile Cataract in his left eye, the said finding was not required to be quashed and set aside by Medical Appellate Tribunal. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present appeal.
5. Having heard Mr.Vasavada, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and considering the orders passed by Medical Appellate Tribunal as well as ESI Court, it is to be noted that the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment and award passed by ESI Court in ESI Second Appeal and unless there is any substantial question of law, the present appeal is not required to be entertained.
6. It appears that considering the report submitted by the Medical Assessor, which was on thorough physical examination of the workman, First Appellate Tribunal allowed the Appeal and assessed disability of the workman at 15%. The said finding came to be confirmed by ESI Court in Second Appeal. When the decision of the Medical Tribunal was considering the report submitted by Medical Assessor, which was consisting of the Expert Doctor and which was on through physical examination of the workman, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court. No illegality has been committed by First Appellate Tribunal in quashing and setting aside the finding of the Medical Board and assessing disability of the workman at 15%. Consequently, no error has been committed by ESI Court in confirming the order passed by the First Appellate Tribunal.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no substance in the present appeal, which came to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
8. In view of dismissal of First Appeal, no order in the Civil Application and Civil Application also dismissed accordingly.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti Top