Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2219
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Aniruddha Roy, J
Suvankar Dalapati – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. – Respondent
WPA 14228 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Gourab Ghosh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Chakraborty, Adv., Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad, Adv.
The court reinforced that expert opinions from medical boards cannot be contested without pursuing available statutory remedies first, affirming a decision without new evidence.
Headnote:(A) Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 55(2) and 75 - Review of disability assessment - Petitioner failed to avail of statutory remedies post assessment by ESI Medical Board - Court affirmed the finding as legally sound - Principle established that court cannot interfere with expert opinions in absence of mala fides. (Paras 9, 15, 17)
(B) Statutory remedies - Court emphasized on exhaustion of remedies provided by ESI Act before seeking judicial intervention - Failure to produce new evidence results in dismissal of petition. (Paras 10, 16)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner, an employee of PS Earth Movers Private Limited, suffered an accident leading to disability assessments of 20% by ESI and 60% by a District Hospital. Prior assessment by ESI was upheld due to non-exhaustion of remedies.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that no new evidence was produced post prior judicial order and thus upheld ESI's assessment of 20%.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner’s failure to challenge the ESI Medical Board’s decision through the statutory process available.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that expertise opinions cannot be substituted, and statutory remedies must be pursued prior to judicial intervention.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's disability assessments provided differing reports. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 2. court reviews previous proceedings and addresses prior co-ordinate bench orders. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. petitioner failed to avail the remedial measures of the esi act. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. expert opinion can only be challenged via proper legal channels. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed with no merits. (Para 17 , 18) |
Heard on : 13.08.2025 Judgment on : 13.08.2025 Aniruddha Roy, J.:
1. Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, is taken on record.
2. On the prayer of Mr. Gourab Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner, the exception on behalf of the petitioner filed in Court today is taken on record.
3. Mr. Amit Chakraborty, learned advocate appears for the Union of India.
4. Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad, learned advocate appears for the ESI Corporation.
5. The petitioner at all material time was an employee in the PS Earth Movers Private Limited. In course his employment the petitioner has suffered an accident and the medical board of the ESI has assessed the disablement of the petitioner being 20%, annexure p-4 at page 27 to the writ petition.
6. Immediately, the petitioner went to a District Government Hospital at Purba Medinipur, he had been assessed to be physically disabled by 60%. The disability certificate was dated March 25, 2022 is annexure p-5 at page
28 to the writ petition.
7. The ESI regulations/norms provides for an appellate/review remedy, from the decision of the ESI Medical Board. Admittedly, the petitioner has not availed of such remedy.
8. In this backdrop, a previous writ petition was filed WPA 24629 of 2022.
The previous writ petition was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench by an order dated November 29, 2022, annexure p-7 at page 35 to the writ petition. Under the said order the co-ordinate bench had directed as follows:
“Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and the materials placed on record, this court directs the respondent no.3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated May 6, 2022 and July 18, 2022 keeping in mind calculation that appears from the disability certificate dated March 25, 2022. In case, the petitioner is required to be examined before a review medical board, for calculation of the percentage of his disability such a decision may be taken by the respondent no.3 as per the extant rules and policy governing ESI Corporation. The representation of the petitioner be disposed of by six weeks from date by passing a reasoned order. The reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioners within two weeks of passing thereof.’’
9. Pursuant to and in terms of the said direction of the co-ordinate bench, the ESI authority has passed its impugned reasoned order dated December 29, 2022, annexure p-8 at page 38 to the writ petition. Under the said impugned order the ESI authority has held that since there has been no fresh evidence available on the issue and since the petitioner did not avail of the remedies laid down under Section 75 and Sub-Section 2 to Section 55 of The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the ESI ACT), the request of the petitioner was not accepted and accordingly the said assessment of the ESI Medical Board assessing the petitioner to be disabled by 20% has been affirmed.
10. Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad, learned counsel for the ESI authority submits that the remedy provided under the statute not being availed of the petitioner cannot challenge the decision by way of the instant writ petition. He further submits that the finding of the Medical Board of ESI has not been controverted by the petitioner by producing any subsequent evidence later than March 25, 2022 being the certificate of the District Government Hospital. Mr. Prasad prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
11. Mr. Amit Chakraborty, learned advocate for the Union of India has also adopted the submissions of Mr. Prasad.
12. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on
