A disability certificate for calculating compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, can be validly issued by any qualified medical practitioner, regardless of whether they personally treated the injured party, provided they are subject to cross-examination.

Judgment :

1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation (‘Commissioner’) under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

2. On 20 January 2014, the appeal was admitted, but no substantial question of law was framed. Therefore, the substantial question of law is framed now which reads as under :

“Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in rejecting the application for compensation on the sole ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not attend to the injured applicant ?”

3. On 14 January 2026, an order was passed issuing notice to respondent no.2-insurance company to engage an advocate to defend the appeal. It was mentioned that if after the service of the notice there is no appearance, then the appeal will be decided in their absence.

4. Ms. Nichani, learned advocate for the appellant has produced a letter acknowledged by respondent no.2 whereby an order dated 14 January 2026 was enclosed which is self-explanatory. However, there has been no appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 today.

5. The appeal is of the year 2012 and inspite of notice, respondent no.2 chose not to appear. Therefore, I have no option but to decide this appeal ex parte.

6. The original applicant was employed with opponent no. 1 for doing work at a construction site at Thane. While carrying out work at the construction site, the applicant fell and suffered back injuries. The injured was taken to Lok Hospital, Thane for treatment. The injured was in hospital from 22 March 2010 to 29 March 2010.

7. The applicant made an application to the Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.5,95,584/- from opponent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Evidence of opponent no.1 and the applicant was recorded. The Commissioner, after hearing all the parties, dismissed the application on the sole ground that the disability certificate was issued by a doctor who did not attend to the injured applicant, though the said doctor entered the witness box and gave evidence. On the basis of this reasoning, the Commissioner decided all the issues against the applicant. Therefore, the present appeal is filed challenging the said order.

8. I have heard Ms.Nichani, learned counsel for the appellant.

9. At the outset, the Commissioner was not justified in answering the issues against the applicant, which do not have any relation with the disability certificate which was issued by the doctor. For example, whether employer-employee relationship has been established or whether the accident occurred in the course of employment etc. are issues which ought to have been decided independently and same does not have any relation whatsoever with respect to the disability certificate for the purpose of calculating compensation. However, since all the issues are decided against the applicant solely on the ground of disability certificate, for the reasons stated hereinafter, the said reasoning is erroneous. Insofar as other issues are concerned, same stands concluded based on my finding on the issue of disability certificate.

10. Section 4(1)(c)(ii) and Explanation-II thereto of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 provides for disability certificate to be issued by a “qualified medical practitioner” for ascertaining loss of earning capacity in relation to injuries specified in the Schedule.

11. Section 2(1)(i) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 defines “qualified medical practitioner” to mean any