Court No. - 21
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1284 of 1991
Appellant :- E.S.I.
Respondent :- Jai Narain
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Tiwari
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. By way of this appeal the Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'ESIC') has felt aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.1991 passed by Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur whereby it had allowed the appeal upturning the decision of the medical board in Appeal No. 87 of 1991.
2. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the commissioner has ignored the fact that the earning capacity was reduced as per the se of the Medical Board. The expert had never examined the injured. The Medical Board awarded 30% loss of earning capacity as the employee had sustained loss of vision of left eye in employment injury which occurred on 29.02.1984. The Court below after applying its mind given cogent reasons and by looking to the work of the injured, and the medical report of doctor granted 30% loss of injury. This has aggrieved the appellant.
3. The Apex Court recently in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and this High Court in FAFO 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has held as follows:
"The grounds urged before this Court are in the realm of finding of facts and not a question of law. As far as question of law is concerned, the aforesaid judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Versus Divisional Manager and another (supra) in paragraph 8 holds as follows "the Workman Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis."
4. The Apex Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha, AIR 2018 SC 5593 has held that unless perversity is pointed out, the first appellate Court should not easily interfere with the findings of facts and percentage of disability is a question of fact. No perversity has been pointed out, hence no interference is called far.
5. In view of the above, this appeal sans merit and is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, shall stands vacated.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 P.S.Parihar