J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned first appeals are the same and the disposal of one first appeal would govern the disposal of all other connected first appeals, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the First Appeal No. 2374 of 2015 is treated as the lead matter.

3. This first appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 is at the instance of the Employees State Insurance Corporation-original respondent and is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th February, 2015 passed by the Employee's State Insurance Court, Vadodara in the ESI Application No. 16 of 2008.

4. The facts giving rise to this first appeal may be summarized as under:-

4.1 The respondent No. 1-preferred an application under Section 52-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short "the Act, 1948") read with Schedule-III-C, Entry No. 1 of the Act, 1948 for compensation from the year 2003 on the ground of having contracted occupational disease, namely, silicosis. The respondent No. 2 in this appeal is the employer. The respondent No. 1-original applicant was working in a cement factory. The case put up by the respondent No. 1-original applicant before the ESI Court was that as he was working in the crushing plant of the cement factory and such other Sections where various chemicals and minerals like Dolomite, Silica, Quarry etc. are being crushed for the purpose of manufacturing of the cement, he, as a result, was continuously exposed to the fine particles of the minerals present in the atmosphere. Due to inhalation of such mineral particles, the respondent No. 1-workman contracted a dreaded disease known as "Silicosis" making it difficult for the respondent No. 1 to 2018(2) Employees State Insurance Corpo. v. Lalsing S. Garasiya (J.B. Pardiwala, J.) 645 survive. In such circumstances, he preferred an application addressed to the Corporation with the necessary materials with a prayer to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for appropriate compensation. It appears from the materials on record that the Corporation failed to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1948. The Corporation did not refer the respondent No. 1-workman to the Medical Board for medical examination. In such circumstances, the respondent No. 1-workman had to prefer appropriate application in the ESI Court seeking relief of 100% compensation for the permanent total disablement payable for lifetime.

4.2 The ESI Court, for the purpose of adjudication of the application filed by the respondent No. 1-workman, framed the following issues vide Exh. 19;

"(1) Whether the applicant proves that, he was working in the establishment of the respondent No. 3 from January, 2002 to December, 2003?

(2) Whether the applicant proves that, the opponent No. 3 was his employer and he was the employee?

(3) Whether the opponent proves that, the ESI Act, 1948 is not applicable to the opponent No. 3?

(4) Whether only for the reason that the opponent No. 3 had not paid the contribution, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate this application?

(5) Whether the opponent proves that, the applicant has not contracted Silicosis during his service in the establishment of the opponent No. 3?

(6) Whether the applicant proves that, due to the occupational diseases Silicosis he has suffered 100% permanent physical disablement?

(7) Whether the applicant is entitled to seek compensation as per the provisions of ESI Act having suffered total disablement on account of contracting Silicosis from the year 2003?

(8) Whether the applicant is entitled to receive 100% compensation with 12% interest for the permanent total disablement payable for lifetime?

(9) Whether as per the provisions of the ESI Act 1948 the applicant is entitled to the handicap benefit/compensation hereinafter every month?

(10) Whether the applicant is entitled to the cost