Court : Allahabad
Reported in : I(2007)ACC584; [2006(110)FLR1210]
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. Respondent-worker Mohd. Asfaq at Kanpur sustained an employment injury in his left hand on 10.7.1978. He was referred under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 to the Medical Board for determination of his disablement, in consequence thereof the Medical Board after examining him found 3% permanent loss of his earning capacity awardable to the worker. The said loss was calculated at Rs. 2,066.25 which the relevant office of the Corporation paid to respondent-worker as loss of his earning capacity after sending the respondent-worker a letter of information dated 7.10.1980.2. The respondent-worker, thereafter, preferred an Appeal No. 81 of 1980, Mohd Asfaq v. E.S.I. Corporation, under Section 54A of the afore noted Act on 23.10.1980 before the Employees' Insurance Court, Kanpur, which the Judge allowed partly and thereby modified the decision of the Medical Board to the extent that the worker Mohd. Asfaq will be awarded 5% loss of his earning ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2006)ACC206; 2006(4)AWC4224; [2006(110)FLR856]; (2007)ILLJ70All
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J. 1. It is now 24 years since the employee in the Elgin Mill No. 2, at Kanpur, sustained an injury in his left eye resulting in diminishing of the vision and has still not been granted compensation. The Government is supposed a Model Employer and such inordinate delay is indefensible. It is surprising in the extreme that the Medical Board despite the finding ( see page 8/8 of the medical board Report) that there was disablement of permanent nature in the vision of the left eye of the worker did not report the disablement of any kind as provided in the provisions of the Act.2. The Entry in Second Schedule under Section 2(15A) and 15B of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 as the then in force with regard to loss of vision and earning capacity is as follows:At Serial No. 32:- Lass of vision of one eye without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the other being normal- Percentage of loss of Earning capacity-30. 3. Clearly, therefore, with regard to schedule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : II(2007)ACC434; 2007ACJ370
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. It is now 24 years since the employee at Kanpur on 23.11.83 sustained an employment injury in his left eye resulting in diminution of vision and has still not been granted compensation.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent worker during the hours of his employment, suffered an injury in his left eye. The eye surgeon to whom the worker was referred, examined his eye in L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur (Government Hospital) found that there was 6/36 loss of vision in the left eye as a result of that injury. Respondent worker was thereafter referred to the Medical Board for determination of question of disability but the Medical Board was of the opinion that there was no disability in his left eye due to that injury in consequence whereof, there was also no loss of his earning capacity, provisionally or finally.3. The respondent worker challenged this decision of the Board by filing the appeal as provided in Section 54A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : I(2007)ACC177
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. It is now 24 years since the respondent-employee at Kanpur, sustained a blunt injury in his right eye resulting in diminution of the vision and has still not been granted compensation.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent-worker who was referred to an Eye Surgeon at L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur on examination of his eyes (Government Hospital) had found that there was 6/36 loss of vision in the right eye as a result of that injury. The respondent worker was thereafter referred to the Medical Board for determination of question of disability but the Medical Board was of the opinion that there was no disability due to the aforesaid injury and in consequence whereof, no loss of earning capacity, provisionally or finally.3. The respondent worker, challenged the aforesaid decision of the Board by filing an appeal as provided in Section 54A of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 and the E.S.I. Court reversed the view of the Medical Board, placing reliance on the repor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2006)ACC157; 2007ACJ280; 2006(4)AWC3329; [2006(110)FLR322]; (2006)IIILLJ595All; [2007]1SCL317(All)
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.1. The respondent who is an employee in a factory, suffered injury in his right ear and was referred by the Corporation to the Medical Board for Medical Examination for determination of his disablement as postulated in Section 54A of the 'Employees State Insurance Act, 1948' (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act') read with Regulation- 72 of the year 1950 under the Act.2. The Medical Board in its report dated 20.2.1992 noted that the test does not reveal Hearing Loss and there was no disablement injury, and, therefore, the employee was not entitled to any disablement benefit. The employee then went before the Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur. He did not file an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Medical Board because he had the option to go straight to the court by Virtue of the provisions as contained in Clause-II Sub-section 2 of Section 54A of the Act. The provision is as follows:(2) If the insured person or the Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2006)ACC337
S.S. Kulshrestha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials on record.2. It is said that no substantial question of law is involved. Even at the time of admission of the appeal on 24.9.1997, no such substantial question of law was drawn. In order to facilitate disposal of this appeal, it may be mentioned that it is admitted case of the parties that Mr. Asgar Abbas Rizvi was under employment (labour) of M/s. Elgin Mills, Kfanpur. In the course of his duty, on 26.3.1982 he sustained eye injury. He was referred to the Medical Board on 3.4.1991 who opined it to be the injuries on the left eye but the loss of earning capacity was considered to be nill. Against the decision of the Medical Board, Appeal No. 117 of 1991 was preferred before the learned Judge, Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur. It was on the basis of admitted case of the parties with regard to sustaining of the injuries and also on the basis of evidence adduced the Court adjudicated 30% lo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(2)AWC1735; [2006(109)FLR615]; (2006)IIILLJ33All
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by an Hon'ble single Judge on the 7th of March, 2006. 2. The brief facts are that on or about the 6th of January this year, an assessment order was passed under Section 45A of the E.S.I. Act, 1948. The amount of contribution was a little above Rs. 80 lac. The amount of interest at the rate of 12% under Section 39, Sub-section 5 (a) came to a little under Rs. 50 lac and as such the total amount was about Rs. 1.31 crore. 3. The assessment was not in respect of ordinary employer's contribution but was made notionally on labour value of 25% in respect of certain repair and other works done on the writ petitioner's factory machinery. 4. On the 6th of February, 2006, a notice was served upon the respondent-writ petitioner for payment of the total amount. The notice mentioned a period of 15 days as the period allowed for payment. 5. On the 21st of February, 2006, the accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2005)ACC294; 2005(4)AWC3289; [2005(106)FLR968]
O.N. Khandelwal, J.1. This appeal under section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as the ESI Act) has been filed against the order dated 27.4.1992 passed by the Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur.2. The respondent employee sustained employment injuries in his left ear on 30.10.1992 when he was on duty in the Elgin Mill No. 2 Kanpur. The first certificate was issued by the Insurance Medical Officer on 31.10.1992. He was administered analgesic and antibiotic medicines and remained under the continuous treatment from 31.10.1992 to 9.11.1992. Form No. BI (1) (a) duly filled by the Insurance Medical Officer was sent for information of the Medical Board. The Medical Board in Form BI (2) entered details and other employment injuries that of left eye on account of accident dated 9.6.1978, of left knee on account of accident dated 6.10.1987. The Medical Board vide its report dated 23.12.1992 examined and foundInjury (left) earO/E (On examination) no external sc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC1547
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Common questions of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions and they are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 36892 of 2004 is treated as leading case.2. Writ petition No. 36892 of 20044 has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.6.2004 passed by the respondent No. 1- Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Kanpur and notice dated 29.12.2003 for payment of gratuity under Rule 17 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules issued by the Controlling authority/the Assistant Labour commissioner (Central), Allahabad- respondent No. 2.BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited is a multi-unit Public Sector Undertaking. Of its 5 units, one is situate at Gorakhpur. An advertisement No. 35/89 was published in newspaper by the petitioners- the Fertilizer Corporatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)ESC2050; [2005(105)FLR1028]; (2005)IIILLJ116All
R.P. Misra and A.P. Sahi, JJ.1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Unit of the petitioner Union' looking after the welfare of the Employees of the Hotel Agra, Ashok Agra, praying for Mandamus commanding the respondents not to implement the notification dated 23.12.1996 as well as the other (notifications issued in this regard, under the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder, primarily on the ground that the Employees of the petitioner's union are enjoying comparatively more advantageous benefit than under 1978 Rules made applicable to the petitioner by the respondent employer and that the applicability of the E.S.I. Act and the notifications made thereunder would seriously prejudice the rights of the petitioner.2. We have heard Sri V.K. Upadhyay, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. who has also appeared for the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!