Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Vasantbhai Bhudarbhai Parmar

P.B. Majmudar, J.—This Appeal is filed by Employees State Insurance Corporation u/s 82 of the Employees'' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the E.S.I. Act).

An appeal u/s 82 of the E.S.I. Act would be maintainable only when there is a substantial question of law. However, looking to the scheme of the Act, it is not necessary that substantial question of law is required to be framed by the Judge like second appeal under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code.

Section 82 of the E.S.I. Act reads as under:

Appeal.

(1) Save as expressly provided in this Section, no appeal shall lie from an order of an Employees'' Insurance Court.

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

(3) The period of Limitation for an appeal under this Section shall be sixty days.

(4) The provisions of Sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) shall apply to appeals under this Section.

So far as Section 100 of the CPC is concerned, die same reads as under:

Second appeal:

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time-being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

(2) An appeal may lie under this Section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.

(3) In an appeal under this Section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.

(4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.

(5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.

It is required to be noted that by virtue of amendment in C.P.C. in the year 1976, in a second appeal, the Court is required to frame substantial question of law at the time of entertaining the second appeal. Such is not the position so far as appeal under the E.S.I. Act is concerned. Even prior to 1976 amendment of C.P.C, second appeal was maintainable on question of law only, but there was no provision for framing such question by the Court while entertaining the appeal. So far as appeal u/s 82 of the E.S.I. Act is concerned, the provision for entertaining such appeal on substantial question of law is there from the very beginning. However, the Courts never used to frame any substantial question of law so far as the appeal under the E.S.I. Act is concerned.

It is required to be noted that if substantial question of law is to be framed in an appeal u/s 82 of the E.S.I. Act as like the appeal u/s 100 of C.P.C, the appeal is required to be heard only on the questions so formulated, and the Court may permit the parties to argue on such questions not formulated if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. Scheme of Section 100 C.P.C, and Section 82 of E.S.I. Act is altogether different and in the later case, the Court is not required to frame substantial questions as like the one u/s 100 C.P.C. It is not necessary to formulate substantial questions of law as no such duty is cast on the Court as like Section 100 C.P.C. Language of Section 100 C.P.C, and Section 82 of the E.S.I. Act is different so far as this question is concerned. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to frame any substantial question of law at the time of admitting the appeal under the E.S.I. Act. The Court is required to consider at the time of hearing they appeal whether any substantial question of law arises in the matter.

Mr. Vasavada submitted that in the present, the question of law arises to the effect that E.S.I. Court has assessed the disability at 100% instead of 28% assessed by the Medical Board and confirmed by the Medical Appellate Tribunal.

Mr. Vasavada submitted that First Appeal No. 2077 of 2005 involving identical question is admitted by the Court. Hence : Admit.

To be heard with F.A. No. 2077 of 2005.