IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2352 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2352 of 2025 ==========================================================

REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION Versus TARUNKUMAR KESHALAL ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR AV NAIR(5602) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 16/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the “ESI Act”), challenging the judgment and order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the learned Employees’ State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad, in E.S.I. Second Appeal No.56 of 2023, whereby the Second Appeal came to be dismissed and the disablement of 10% assessed by the Medical Appeal Tribunal was confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent – Mr.Tarunkumar Keshalal was an employee of M/s. Arvind Intex in the Spinning Department. On 25.11.2019, while he was working, he sustained employment injury on his right shoulder. The case was referred to the Medical Board after the B.I.Form was duly filled. The Medical Board found that though an injury had occurred, he had not sustained any functional disability. Accordingly, under the ESI Act, the Medical Board assessed the functional loss at 0%. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Medical Appeal Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short “MAT”), being MAT (Appeal) No.7 of 2022. By order dated 10.08.2022, the MAT after examining the X-ray report observed that there was a fracture of the humerus in his right hand, along with pain, swelling and reduced grip capacity and accordingly assessed 10% functional disability. Being aggrieved, the ESI Corporation filed Second Appeal before the ESI Court. As stated hereinabove, the said Second Appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present First Appeal is filed by the ESI Corporation.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.A.V.Nair for the appellant. Though served, none appeared for respondent–

original claimant.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Nair for the appellant would submit that the learned ESI Court has committed a serious error in assessing 10% functional disability. He would further submit that the respondent, who was working in M/s. Arvin Intex in the Spinning Department, suffered a fracture of the humerus in his right hand along with pain and swelling. He would also submit that the assessment of the functional loss as permanent partial disablement is prescribed under Schedule-II of the ESI Act, therefore the learned ESI Court erred in equating permanent partial disablement with functional loss.

4.1 In appeal memo, the appellant raised the following questions as substantial questions of law:-

“(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Hon'ble Employee State Insurance Court has materially failed in exercising its appellant jurisdiction under section 54 (2) (i) of the ESI Act, in upholding the findings of the Medical Appellate Tribunal, without assigning any cogent or legally tenable reasons?

(2) Whether the Hon'ble Employee State Insurance Court and the Hon'ble Medical Appellate Tribunal have appreciated section 2(15-A) defining "permanent partial disablement" in its true and correct spirits in the facts of the present case?

(3)Whether the Hon'ble Medical Appellate Tribunal was justified in law or fact, in assessing Permanent Partial Disablement of the claimant to the tune of 10%, contrary to the Part-II of the Second Schedule to Employees State Insurance Act, 1948?

(4)Whether the impugned orders are perverse and illegal on account of no cogent or legally tenable reasons having been assigned for arriving at the conclusion?

4.2 In view of the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Nair, learned advocate, urged that the present appeal be allowed as it involves substantial quest