IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 Ins.APP.No. 22 of 2004() ------------------------ (AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.6/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE E.I.COURT, IDUKKI) APPELLANT/OPP. PARTY. ------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I. CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT. ----------------- SHRI.P.K.VIDYADHARAN, KAZHUNAKANDAM HOUSE, PALLAM POST, KOTTAYAM. BY THIS INSURANCE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- Insurance Appeal No. 22 of 2004 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17th January, 2008. J U D G M E N T The respondent in I.C.No.6/2001, on the file of Employees Insurance Court, Idukki, is the appellant. This appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the Employees Insurance Court, directing the appellant to take steps rehabilitate the respondent, and also to pay his benefits, as provided under Section 19 of the Employees' State Insurance Act (for short 'the Act'). The respondent was an employee working in M/s.Stanes Tyre and Rubber Products, Kottayam, as also covered under the Act. He became ill and was undergoing treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He was suffering from Mylo Vadiculopathy and Poly Vadiculopathy for a period from 24.10.1991 to 6.11.1991. He was paid 91 days sickness benefits and 309 days extended sickness benefit. Dissatisfied with the benefits conferred, respondent filed I.C.No.6/2001 for a direction to the Corporation to pay disability benefit throughout his life stating that while in employment during November, 1991, he developed sudden back pain and weakness of both the legs, and he was totally disabled and unable to earn any income. In.Ap.No.22/2004 2 2. The appellant contested the matter. It was contended that respondent did not sustain any employment injury. It was also contended that the illness developed had nothing to do with the employment and it was a natural one. So, he was not entitled to any disablement benefit. It was also contended that the respondent was suffering from a disease and for which he was paid the benefit and hence, he was not entitled to get any other benefits. The Insurance Court found that the respondent developed illness of Mylo Vadiculopathy, while he was working in the establishment as a driver under M/s.Stanes Tyre and Rubber Products, Kottayam, and he was handicapped for doing any further work. Hence, the Insurance Court had directed the appellant to rehabilitate the respondent as provided under Section 19 of the Act. Challenging that order, this appeal is filed. In.Ap.No.22/2004 3 3. The respondent was an employee working under M/s.Stanes Tyre and Rubber Products, Kottayam. He fell ill and he was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. AW.1 Doctor gave evidence to the effect that illness developed was as a result of hard work. The Insurance Court also found that the respondent did not sustain any employment injury, but directed the appellant to give the benefits to the respondent under Section 19 of the Act. 4. It is true that the respondent was working in the establishment of M/s.Stanes Tyre and Rubber Products, Kottayam, during the relevant period. But there is nothing to show that disease developed on account of the work done by him. Section 19 of the Act provides certain benefits to employees, but that benefit is not available to all employees. The learned Standing Counsel has made available a scheme framed by the Central Government for the permanent disabled insured persons. It shows that to get the benefit, there must be minimum 45% disability and the employee must be below 45 years. The exact disability is not assessed by the Doctor, but it is stated that the respondent is unable to do any work. So, even if the contention that he is more than 40% disabled is accepted, the respondent was aged 45 years. So, he cannot be given the benefits In.Ap.No.22/2004 4 under the scheme framed by the Central Government under Section 19 of the Act. So, the finding of the Insurance Court that the respondent is entitled to the benefits, as provided under Section 19 of the Act, is without any merit, and I do so. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Order passed by the Insurance Court allowing I.C.No.6/2001 is hereby set aside. I.C. is dismissed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.