Regional Director, Employees'' State Insurance Corporation vs Ram Prasad Sunder Yadav

D.R. Dhanuka, J.—The Employees'' State Insurance Corporation has preferred this appeal against order dated 9.3.1988, passed by the Employees'' Insurance Court in Application (ESI) No. 120 of 1984. By the said order it was declared that the respondent workman, Ram Prasad Sunder Yadav, was entitled to temporary and permanent disablement benefits under the Employees'' State Insurance Act and the Scheme framed thereunder on account of employment injury sustained by him on 8.11.1981.

On the date of the accident, the respondent workman was employed with Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Kandivli, Bombay. The said establishment is a factory duly covered by and under the provisions of the Act. As a result of the said accident, the respondent workman sustained injuries to his right hand finger resulting into fracture due to which he was disabled for the period from 9.11.1981 to 19.12.1981. During the month in which the accident took place, the respondent earned Rs. 311.25 only as wages from his employer.

Following the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohamad Ismail Ansari Vs. E.S.I.C. Bombay, , the trial court held that the respondent was entitled to the disablement benefit from the appellant. The trial court was right in relying on the said judgment. The trial court was bound to do so. The learned Counsel for the appellant desires to make submissions to the effect that the said case was erroneously decided. I am not prepared to entertain any argument from the learned Counsel for the appellant in this direction. The above referred judgment was delivered by Division Bench of this Court and was binding on the trial court and is also binding on this Court. Dr. Kulkarni who was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in this case makes a statement at the Bar that the SLP preferred by the appellant against the said judgment was also rejected by the Supreme Court.

This appeal does not involve any substantial question of law. The impugned order passed by the trial court is right.

The court expresses its gratitude to Dr. Kulkarni for assisting the court.

The appeal fails. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to comply with the order of the trial court, if not already complied with, within four weeks from today.

No order as to costs.