IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2606 of 2010 ==========================================================

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE Versus JAYKISHAN VISHRAMBHAI RAVAT C/O SAVITRIBEN JAYKISHAN RAVAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HEMANT S SHAH(756) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 12/03/2026

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 22.07.2009 passed by the learned Employees’ State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad, in E.S.I. Second Appeal No.12 of 2009 in Appeal (MAT) No.75 of 2007, whereby the Second Appeal came to be dismissed and the disablement of 20% assessed by the MAT was confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent- Jaykishan Vishrambhai Ravat was an employee of M/s.Victor Steel Industries and was registered with the ESI Corporation under registration No.37-4293873. During the course of his employment, on 29.04.2006, he sustained an injury to his right eye due to accident. The ESI Corporation granted temporary disablement benefit to the respondent from 29.04.2006 to 07.07.2007. Thereafter, he was referred to the Medical Board constituted under the ESI Act for the examination. Upon examination, the respondent was assessed 3% physical disablement and BIR-II certificate was issued accordingly.

2.1 The respondent challenged the said assessment of 3% physical disablement by filing an Appeal before the Medical Appeal Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short “MAT”), being MAT No.75 of 2007. By order dated 23.01.2008, the MAT assessed the physical disablement at 20%. 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.Hemant Shah for the appellant. Though served, none appeared for respondent.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Hemant Shah for the appellant would submit that the learned ESI Court has committed a serious error in confirming 20% physical disablement, despite the respondent workman himself claiming that the physical disablement is limited to 10%. He would further submit that, apart from the aforesaid manifest error, the ESI Court also erred in proceeding with the matter despite the coram not being complete. The assessment carried out by MAT, in absence of properly constituted coram, was not sustainable; yet the same has been upheld by the Court, which reflects a serious lapse on the part of the ESI Court in passing the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Shah prayed that the present appeal be allowed.

5. At the outset, I refer to Section 82(2) of the ESI Act, which is reproduced as under:-

82(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees’ Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law.”

6. In view of Section 82(2) of the ESI Act, an Appeal before the High Court from an order of ESI Court is maintainable only if it involves a substantial question of law. The expression “substantial question of law” appearing in Section 82(2) of the ESI Act is akin to that used in Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, which governs Second Appeal. However, there is a subtle distinction, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the time of admission of Second Appeal, the Court is required to formulate the substantial question of law as a precondition for its admission. On the contrary, under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act, the Court may admit the appeal; however, it cannot decide the same on merits or on questions of fact determined by the learned Trial Court unless it is established that the appeal involves a substantial question of law. The in