ORDER

These appeals are filed by the claimant as well as the employer being aggrieved of order dated 30/11/2009 passed by the learned Labour Court, Sagar under Employees State Insurance Act in Case No. 2/2000 E.S.I. Act whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the respondents to pay benefit of permanent disablement @ 10% in one installment.

Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta appearing for the claimant workman has challenged this order on the ground that as per the Schedule Part-II, disability earned by the workman on account of the accident resulting in dislocation of collar bone will amount to 70% disablement and, thus, the evidence which has been led by concerned Doctor Virendra Nath Sharda certifying 10% disability is inappropriate, inasmuch as disability was computed after four years of the accident and that does not reflect true and correct percentage of disability.

Shri Sanjeev Tuli in his turn submits that as per the provisions contained in Regulation 76-B of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations 1950, sub-clause (1) provides for commutation of permanent disablement benefit where in case of an Insured person, permanent disablement has been assessed as final and who has been awarded permanent disablement benefit at a rate not exceeding (Rs. 5.00/-) per day may apply for commutation of permanent disablement benefit into a lumpsum.

It is submitted that this lumpsum benefit too is required to be restricted to Rs. 30,000/- at the time of commencement of final award of his permanent disability but in the present case, since the disablement exceeded Rs. 5.00/- and was computed at 8.12, therefore, workman is not entitled for commutation of permanent disablement benefit and to that extent, the impugned award is illegal and arbitrary.

It is submitted that the workman is getting disability pension per month on account of the disablement suffered by him.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that reliance by Shri Ashok Gupta, counsel for the workman on part II of the Second Schedule to the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 is misplaced.

This Schedule deals with amputation of upper limbs from entry no. 7 to 16 A. It deals with amputation of lower limbs from entry no. 17 to 30. It deals with loss of one eye or vision in one eye or partial loss of vision in entry no. 31 to 32-A.

It deals with loss of fingers of right or left hand from entry no. 33 to 44 and then loss of toes of right or left foot from entry no. 45 to 54. The third Schedule deals with list of occupational diseases. Therefore, submission made by Shri Ashok Gupta that 70% disability should have been computed is not made out from the Schedule referred to by Shri Gupta. Thus, reliance placed by Shri Gupta on Schedule-II is wholly misplaced. It appears that out of blue, he has referred to this Schedule without understanding the meaning and import of the said entries given in the said schedule.

Thus, claim putforth by the workman through his counsel Shri Ashok Gupta being not substantiated to any legal provision or any entry in the Schedule deserves to be discarded and is hereby discarded.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the claimant workman is dismissed.

As far as appeal filed by the respondents is concerned, it is evident that in terms of the provisions contained in Regulation 76-B of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations 1950, the impugned order awarding lumpsum commutation of permanent disablement benefit being contrary to the provisions contained in Sub-Regulation I of Regulation 76-B cannot be sustained.

Therefore, that part of the order contained in para 26 and the subsequent paras is hereby quashed. Since, workman is already getting monthly disablement pension, therefore, no further indulgence is required.

In above terms, the appeals are disposed of.

Record of the Tribunal be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy