IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 Ins.APP.No. 57 of 2010() ----------------------------------- E.I.C.A.1/2009 of EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR RESPONDENT/APPLICANT --------------------------------------- P. NARAYANAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, CHELANKUNNU HOUSE, P.O.THIRUVALY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.N.KRISHNAN, J ---------------------------- INS.APPEAL.NO.57 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Employees Insurance Court Appeal No.1/2009. The applicant before the court below was an employee of the Malappuram Co-operative Spinning Mills limited. It is the case of the appellant that due to continuous exposure to cotton and fiber dust and other tiny particles, respiratory problems developed with the result, the appellant had to undergo treatment for chest diseases from various places. On account of the fact that it almost become impossible to continue the work and later it forced him to quit the job. The Medical board of the ESI Corporation did not find any disability with him , but the Medical Appellate Tribunal found him 50% disability and in appeal the Employees Insurance Court found him 100% disability and directed the Corporation to give him the benefits. It is against that decision the ESI Corporation has come up in appeal. INS.APPEAL.NO.57 OF 2010 2 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent. The question that has to be resolved by this Court is whether there is a total disablement for the applicant to continue the job which he was previously doing. Admittedly, the applicant was an employee of a spinning mill which was engaged in spinning of cotton and polyester yarn. According to the appellant the disease which he had suffered is an occupational disease. The two Medical certificates relied upon by the party one issued by the Associated Professor, Department of T.B & Chest, Diseases, Medical College Hospital would reveal that the applicant is suffering from post tubercular sequela and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease. His ventilatory function reveal less than 50% predicted values which suggest severe air flow obstruction. Ext.P2 is another Medical Certificate issued to show that exposure to dust may exacubate his symptoms, so he is advised to avoid work in dusty and polluted atmospheric and also to avoid excess physical INS.APPEAL.NO.57 OF 2010 3 exertion. Coupled with the evidence of PW1 supported by Ext.P1 and P2 it is manifestly clear that the applicant had suffered an occupational disease which is getting aggravated day by day and further exposure to the same environment may prove fatal to him. The Medical Appellate Tribunal fixed it 50%. So what has to be decided in this case is whether the applicant had suffered occupational disease and continuous engagement will aggravate the disease and whether it will cause a permanent problem for him. The doctors evidence and certificates clearly reveals that is having chronic chest congestion with reduced functioning of the system with a blockage of more than 50%. The environment in which is expected to work is that of a polluted atmosphere of cotton and polyester yarn. He cannot be given any other job other than this for the reason the atmosphere is of a spinning industry. Therefore, when Ext.P1 and P2 are put together it is clear that a man is having more than 50% of air block and is advised not to get INS.APPEAL.NO.57 OF 2010 4 exposed to such a polluted atmosphere which makes a total disability for the person. Therefore, in order to preserve his life he has to resign his job. It is not a contumacious act on his part. He will be more interested preserving his life rather than exposing himself to death. So the leaving of the job was on account of the suffering and there is nothing to show that he could have been accommodated some where else in that polluted atmosphere. Therefore, I agree with the learned Employees Insurance Court judge and hold that there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by him. Therefore, appeal is dismissed but without costs. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE pm