... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1786 OF 2006 FIRST APPEAL NO.1786 OF 2006 FIRST APPEAL NO.1786 OF 2006 E.S.I.C. ...Appellant Versus Shri Balkrishna Anna Shinde ...Respondent Shri H.V.Mehta for the Appellant. Shri S.C.Naidu along with Manoj Gujar i/by M/s.C.R.Naidu for the Respondent. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 06, 2007. DATE : FEBRUARY 06, 2007. DATE : FEBRUARY 06, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocates appearing for the parties. The impugned order arises out an Appeal preferred under section 20-B of the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 read with section 54-A(2) of the Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948. 2. Initially, an order was passed on 22nd February, 2000 granting benefits to the Respondent. The said order was passed after the Respondent was examined by the medical board on 17th September, 1999. It appears from the judgment that the earlier order was revoked by the Regional Director by his order dated 06th June, 2001. In paragraph No.12 of the impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Judge has held thus: ... 2 ... "12. Pursuant to this, I refer to the documents alongwith List Exh.4, especially the Disablement Benefit Medical Board Report dated 19-3-2001, letter from ESI Local Office at Parel addressed to Dy.Regional Director dated 8-9-2000. The subsequent letter indicates that the Manager, L.O., has mentioned that the insured person when came for payment, he found that he can hear though talked with him in a low voice. The said letter further indicates that the Personnel Manager, L.O., that though the insured person has no major deficiency in hearing, a huge amount is paid to him every month as permanent disablement benefit. This particular aspect clearly indicates that the employer as well as the Authority had doubted the hearing deficiency of the Appellant. However, there is no evidence showing that any opportunity was given to the Appellant to examine himself or to appear before the concerned Authority. The Company as per the letter dated 31-7-2000 has also made it clear that the loss of hearing is not due to continuous employment in the Weaving Department and that all precautionary measures have been taken. This letter correspondence and documents on record are the indicative ... 3 ... fact that the deficiency in hearing is considered by an order dated 6-6-2001 as being improved. Such improvement in hearing capacity of the Appellant has not been assessed thoroughly. There is no iota of evidence about examination of the Appellant by a competent Medical Board. Therefore, in all the above sequence of events, it is very clear that the Order dated 6-6-2001 is an unreasoned order. No clear discussion is being made so far as the basis on which the conclusions have been drawn that percentage of permanent disability has gone down and reduced upto 12%. In fact, the Corporation can assess the same as per the rules by directing the Appellant to undergo the medical examination before the medical board". 3. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are purely the findings of fact. No substantial question of law arises. Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE