Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) against the judgment of the Employees' State Insurance Court (ESI Court) dated 18.12.2009, which dismissed the ESIC's appeal and confirmed the order of the Medical Appeal Tribunal (MAT) dated 23.01.2008. The MAT had assessed 40% hearing loss due to employment injury suffered by the employee, Shri Narbheram Mavjibhai, a weaver at Arvind Mills Ltd. The employee had been suffering from hearing loss since 02.12.2003, allegedly due to noise exposure at work. The Special Medical Board initially assessed 0% disablement, attributing the hearing loss to non-occupational causes. The employee appealed to the MAT, which after considering the evidence, assessed 40% hearing loss as employment-related. The ESIC challenged this before the ESI Court, which upheld the MAT's decision. The ESIC then appealed to the High Court under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal under Section 82 lies only on substantial questions of law, and the MAT's findings on the percentage of disablement are findings of fact, which cannot be interfered with unless perverse. The court found no perversity in the MAT's assessment and upheld the concurrent findings of the MAT and ESI Court.
Headnote
A) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 82 - Scope of Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The appeal under Section 82 lies only on substantial questions of law, not on factual findings of the Medical Appeal Tribunal. The High Court held that the Medical Appeal Tribunal's assessment of 40% hearing loss due to employment injury is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with unless perverse. (Paras 1-3)
B) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Medical Appeal Tribunal - Finality of Findings - The Medical Appeal Tribunal's decision on the percentage of disablement is final and binding on the parties. The ESI Court's confirmation of the MAT's award of 40% disablement was upheld, as there was no substantial question of law involved. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Medical Appeal Tribunal's assessment of 40% hearing loss due to employment injury can be interfered with in an appeal under Section 82 of the ESI Act, 1948.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The MAT's findings on the percentage of disablement are findings of fact and not open to challenge under Section 82 of the ESI Act.
Law Points
- Scope of appeal under Section 82 of ESI Act is limited to substantial questions of law
- Medical Appeal Tribunal's findings on percentage of disablement are final and binding
- No interference with concurrent findings of fact unless perverse
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 183
R/First Appeal No. 2187 of 2010
Mr. Hemant S. Shah for the Appellant, Mr. Hitesh K. Pandya for the Respondent
Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Ahmedabad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 against the judgment of the ESI Court confirming the Medical Appeal Tribunal's award of 40% hearing loss compensation.
Remedy Sought
The appellant (Regional Director, ESIC) sought to set aside the ESI Court's judgment and the MAT's order assessing 40% disablement.
Filing Reason
The ESIC was aggrieved by the ESI Court's dismissal of its appeal and confirmation of the MAT's order assessing 40% hearing loss due to employment injury.
Previous Decisions
The Special Medical Board assessed 0% disablement on 06.03.2007. The MAT, in Appeal (MAT) No.40 of 2007, assessed 40% hearing loss on 23.01.2008. The ESI Court dismissed the ESIC's appeal on 18.12.2009.
Issues
Whether the Medical Appeal Tribunal's assessment of 40% hearing loss due to employment injury can be interfered with in an appeal under Section 82 of the ESI Act, 1948.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the MAT's assessment of 40% disablement was erroneous and not based on evidence.
The respondent supported the concurrent findings of the MAT and ESI Court.
Ratio Decidendi
An appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 lies only on substantial questions of law. The Medical Appeal Tribunal's assessment of the percentage of disablement is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with unless perverse. In the absence of any perversity, the concurrent findings of the MAT and ESI Court are binding.
Judgment Excerpts
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 18.12.2009 delivered by the Employees’ State Insurance Court, (for short “ESI Court”), Ahmedabad in ESI Second Appeal No.21 of 2009, the Regional Director of ESI Corporation, Ahmedabad, has preferred this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short “ESI Act”), whereby the ESI Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 23.01.2008 passed by the Medical Appeal Tribunal (for short “MAT”) in Appeal (MAT) No.40 of 2007, assessing 40% hearing loss due to employment injury suffered by the employee.
The appeal under Section 82 of the ESI Act lies only on substantial questions of law. The MAT's findings on the percentage of disablement are findings of fact and cannot be interfered with.
Procedural History
The employee suffered hearing loss from 02.12.2003. The Special Medical Board assessed 0% disablement on 06.03.2007. The employee appealed to the MAT, which assessed 40% disablement on 23.01.2008. The ESIC appealed to the ESI Court, which dismissed the appeal on 18.12.2009. The ESIC then appealed to the High Court under Section 82 of the ESI Act, which dismissed the appeal on 12.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948: Section 82
