REGL DIRECTOR E S I C Vs. LALUKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have directed this appeal against the order dated August 11, 1998 passed by the E.S.I. Court, Ujjain, in ESI Case No. 200/86, thereby allowing the application filed by respondent No. 1 Lalukhan under Sections 51, 54, 74 and 75 of E.S.I. Act, 1948.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 was working in the Heera Mills Ujjain on the post of weaver. He was insured under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme and his insurance No. was 344353. It is stated that, on November 30, 1985, at about 7.45 a.m. he was working on his loom; at the same time he fell down and thereby sustained fracture in his left leg. The applicant was treated at Patel Nagar Insurance Hospital at Ujjain from December 2, 1985 to February 10, 1986. At the time of discharge, on February 10, 1986 he was referred to, Medical Referee for further treatment and directed to appear before him on February 13,1986. It is stated that on February 13, 1986 when he appeared before the Medical Referee he was not attended and turned out from his office. Thereafter, respondent No. I/applicant voluntarily appeared before the Medical Referee for his examination but he was not examined. The applicant was not given accident benefits for the period November 30, 1985 to February 10, 1986. The respondent- applicant was also not given the fitness certificate till the date of application. Respondent No.1 - applicant, prayed for the issuance of fitness certificate and till that date, the benefits for which he was entitled arising out of the alleged accident. The said application was opposed on behalf of the applicants as also on behalf of respondent No. 3. The learned Judge of the ESI Court, on appreciation of evidence available on the record, allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 and directed him to appear before the Medical Referee for examination and on the basis of the said certificate he be paid all the benefits for which he was found entitled.

(3.) The only contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that the learned Court below has committed an error in directing respondent No. 1 to appear before the Medical Referee for his examination and on the basis of the examination certificate so issued, he was directed to pay the benefits for which he was found entitled. The learned counsel contended that under Sections 54 and 54-A of the E.S.I. Act, for determination of question of disablement, the employee is required to be referred to the Medical Board on the reference of the Medical Officer of the ESI hospital. As such, the respondent No. 1 should have been directed to appear before the Medical Board for his examination and certificate of disability or fitness as the case may be.