IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1784 of 2003 ==========================================================

REGIONAL DIRECTOR Versus RAJU SIPAHIRAM ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HEMANT S SHAH(756) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR NITIN S PANCHAL(3273) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 09/04/2026

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees Insurance Company, 1948 questions the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 29.07.2003 passed by the ESI Tribunal in ESI Second Appeal No.36 of 2000 whereby appeal filed by the respondent was partly allowed and it was held that the appellant was held to have permanent disability.

2. The factual aspects borne out from the record read as under:

2.1 The original claimant – respondent herein was the employee in M/s.Rajesh Enterprises and during the working hours on 07.10.1996 he met with an accident which causes injuries on four fingers of his right hand. Thereafter he was referred to Medical Board in view of E.S.I (General) Regulation 50 and 75 and the Medical Board, on 19.11.1997 examined the respondent claimant and assessed the compensation to the extent of 32%.

2.2 Being aggrieved by the decision of the Medical Board, the respondent herein (original claimant) preferred an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal being Appeal No.263 of 1999 and the said Tribunal vide order dated 27.01.2000 confirmed the decision of the Medical Board against which the respondent – original claimant preferred second appeal before the ESI Tribunal by way of filing ESI Second Appeal No.36 of

2000.

2.3 Upon issuance of the notice, the appellant Corporation appeared before the ESI Tribunal, filed the written reply at Exh.6.

2.4 After hearing the parties, the ESI Tribunal vide order dated 29.07.2003 quashed the order passed by the Medical Appellate Tribunal and assessed 50% imputation on four fingers of right hand of the workman – original claimant. It is this order against which the present appeal is filed by the ESI Corporation.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hemant Shah appearing for the ESI Corporation and learned advocate Mr.Nitin Panchal for the original petitioner before the learned trial Court.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr.Shah for ESI Corporation submits that Medical Board as well as the Medical Appellate Tribunal have assessed permanent disability of the original petitioner to the extent of 32%. The ESI Corporation also accepted the same. He would submit that learned ESI Court, in absence of any other medical evidence, read Schedule II Item No.13 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and held that since there are injuries in four fingers of one hand, the disablement would come to 50% which is an erroneous reading of the Second Schedule. He would further submit that in the present case where the petitioner – original claimant received injuries on index finger, middle finger, ring / little finger and on two phalanges and, therefore, as per Item Nos.34, 38 and 42 of the Schedule, total disablement would work out 32%. Therefore, Medical Board and Medical Appellate Tribunal determined the disability to that extent. However, learned ESI Court exceeded jurisdiction and granted 50% of the disablement which is manifest and apparent error.

4.2 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Shah would submit that the substantial question involved in the matter is that whether the ESI has read Schedule II in its correct perspective and recorded correct Item to decide the permanent disablement arises from the schedule injury. The aforesaid arguments were made to allow the present appeal.

5. As against aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Panchal, while supporting the judgment passed by the ESI Court, invited attention of this Court that the petitioner has received injury on all four fingers of one hand which has rightly been assesse