Skip to content


Badri Bhikaram Vs. Regional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation (14.12.1960 - MPHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Appeal No. 39 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1961MP256
ActsEmployees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sections 82(2); Employees' State Insurance Regulations - Sections 76
AppellantBadri Bhikaram
RespondentRegional Director Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Appellant AdvocateJ.P. Gupta and ;Mittal, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateDiwan, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....held that he had incurred no liability. against! this, the appellant filed an appeal before the appeal tribunal, alleging that his thumb and two fingers of the right hand have been injured, whereby his earning capacity had been reduced by 85 p.c. the appeal tribunal held that the appellant had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 6 per cent. the appellant, aggrieved by the decision of the appeal tribunal has filed this appeal to high court under section 82 of employees' state insurance act (act no. xxxix of 1948). 2. mr. diwan, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent. after hearing the counsel of both the parties, i am of the opinion that the objection must be upheld. 3. mr. diwan, learned counsel for the opposite.....
Judgment:

A.H. Khan, J.

1. The appellant, who is a Jobber in the J. C. Mills sustained an injury. The appellant was covered under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. He was examined by the Medical Board constituted under the 'Employees' State Insurance Act and on 9-5-57, the Medical Board held that he had incurred no liability. Against! this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appeal Tribunal, alleging that his thumb and two fingers of the right hand have been injured, whereby his earning capacity had been reduced by 85 p.c. The Appeal Tribunal held that the appellant had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 6 per cent. The appellant, aggrieved by the decision of the Appeal Tribunal has filed this appeal to High Court under Section 82 of Employees' State Insurance Act (Act No. XXXIX of 1948).

2. Mr. Diwan, learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent. After hearing the counsel of both the parties, I am of the opinion that the objection must be upheld.

3. Mr. Diwan, learned counsel for the opposite side contends that according to Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), under which the present appeal is filed runs thus ;

'82-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 He to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves 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 Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (XL of 1908) shall apply to appeals under this Section'.

Clause 2 of this section lays down two conditions lor appeal; one that the appeal should be from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court; two that the appeal should involve some substantial question of law.

4. It is submitted that the present appeal is not from an Employees' Insurance Court, but from an Appeal Tribunal. It is also urged that the determination of the extent of injury is a question of fact and not a substantial question of law.

5. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the appeal is from an order of Appeal Tribunal, but having regard to its constitution vide Section 76 of the Employees' State Insurance Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations') it is for all practical purposes an Employees' Insurance Court. As to whether it involves a substantial question of law, it is urged that in determining the extent of injury, the Court below did not apply its mind to the evidence on the record and that therefore it is a substantial question of law.

6. In examining the above arguments, reference must be made to Sections 72, 73, 74, 75 and 76 of the Regulations. Section 72 deals with the reference of a case to Medical Board, where an employee has sustained an injury in order to ascertain the extent of disablement as a consequence of the injury. Section 73 speaks of the report of the Medical Board. Section 74 provides for an appeal from the recommendation or report of the Medical Board to an Appeal Tribunal. Section 76 deals with the constitution of the Appeal Tribunal and runs thus :

'76. Appeal Tribunals : An Employees' Insurance Court shall constitute the Appeal Tribunal for the purpose of regulation 74 and for such purpose, it shall be assisted by the following persons to be selected by it as assessors :

(a) One or more medical experts;

(b) One or more officials of or members from a trade union or unions'.

On carefully reading Section 76 of the Regulations, it would appear that the Appeal Tribunal is not simply an Employees' Insurance Court It is something more. The Appeal Tribunal is an Employees' Insurance Court plus one or more medical experts and one or more trade union officials, who would assist the Court. It is treated as a separate entity and has also been given a different designation. In this view of the matter an Employees' Insurance Court cannot be equated with an Appeal Tribunal. And since no appeal is provided from an Appeal Tribunal, the present appeal is incompetent.

7. The other question, namely, whether the present appeal involves a question of substantial law need not be considered in view of my finding that no appeal lies.

8. For reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //