-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO.1553 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) V/s. Kannu Jagannath Raul : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1556 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Narayan Dattaram Sail : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1558 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Brahmachari G. Dubey : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) -: 2 :- FIRST APPEAL NO.1560 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) V/s. Yazdi K. Mistry : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1562 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Baban Maruti Deshmukh : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1565 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Ramavdhar Yadav : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1566 OF 2005 The Regional Director -: 3 :- Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) V/s. Satyanarayan Vishwakarma : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1567 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) V/s. Narayan Baburao Gadekar : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1568 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Ramchandra S. Manchekar : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1569 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. -: 4 :- Devram A. Bachhe : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1571 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Kamla Jainath Pathak : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) .... FIRST APPEAL NO.1572 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Sukhram Dev Yadav : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1573 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) V/s. Hariban N. Dube : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... -: 5 :- FIRST APPEAL NO.1579 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Narayan Vithal Mahadik : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1583 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Yadav Piraji Dhodmal : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1555 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Kanta Prasad Yadav : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1561 OF 2005 The Regional Director -: 6 :- Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) V/s. Rajan Kulai Yadav : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) FIRST APPEAL NO.1563 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Parshuram Jadhav : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1564 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) V/s. Lalchand K. Vishwakarma : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1570 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Rambali Shivmurat Yadav : Respondent -: 7 :- (Orig. Applicant) .... FIRST APPEAL NO.1574 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Babunandan Yadav : Respondent (Orig. Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1576 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) V/s. Madhav Piraji Dhodmal : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1577 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) V/s. Shyam Dular Yadav : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1580 OF 2005 -: 8 :- The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Ramlakhan Pande : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1584 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) V/s. Sukhram Nihar Yadav : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1559 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig. Opponent) V/s. Luddar Rajaram Yadav : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... FIRST APPEAL NO.1581 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) -: 9 :- V/s. Ramkripal Ganpat Yadav : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... AND FIRST APPEAL NO.1582 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Appellant (Orig.Opponent) V/s. Harilal S. Yadav : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2167 OF 2006 In FIRST APPEAL NOS.1553 TO 1587 OF 2005 The Regional Director Employees’ State Insurance Corporation : Applicant V/s. Avadhnarayan Jokhu Sharma & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Applicants) ... Mr.H.V. Mehta for the appellant. Mr.S.C.Naidu with Mr.Manoj M. Gujar and Mr.Siddharth Ingule for the respondents. -: 10 :- ... CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATE : APRIL 15, 2008. P.C. 1. These are Appeals filed by the appellant (Employees’ State Insurance Corporation) against the common judgement dated 1.4.2005 passed by the Employees’ Insurance Court at Mumbai whereby the respondents (original claimants’) appeals have been allowed. The operative part is as under:- "O R D E R 1. All Appeals are allowed. 2. The findings recorded by the Special Medical Board stands set aside. 3. It is hereby declared that the concerned appellants are suffering from Asbestosis of the nature as disclosed in Column No.7 to the extent of percentages given in column No.8 consequently, they are entitled for the benefits at that percentage from the dates disclosed in column No.10 of the Chart pointed out in para No.4 of the -: 11 :- judgement." 2. The chart as referred shows that the respective workers/employees appeared before the Medical Board sometime in January 1990. The ESI Court based upon the said chart awarded the benefits under the Employees’ State Insurance Act. 3. After hearing both the parties, I am of the view that there is no point in re-opening the issue again and remanding the matters back for fresh evidence or material after more than 18 years. The company/factory has already been closed. These appeals/matters ought to have been decided at the earliest point of time to give full opportunity to the parties. After 18 years, it is difficult for all the parties to re-consider and/or lead the evidence in support of their case. 4. Therefore, keeping all points open, I am of the view that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, there is no case made out by the appellants to interfere with the finding so arrived at. The appellants’ submission to take action against the employer also cannot be considered in view of the fact that by the order dated 22.8.2005, the said employer (respondent no.2) was deleted from the present appeals itself. However, keeping all points also open in a given case, the appellant is at -: 12 :- liberty to take action, if a case is made out. 5. Taking all these into account, therefore, all these appeals are disposed of and the impugned order is maintained. Interim orders also stand vacated if any. 6. In other identically placed seven matters, viz., First Appeal no.1554 of 2005 and other six matters, the appellant has not pressed the appeals in view of death of the said employees because of the illness in question. This facet is also important to consider that undisputedly the employees suffered illness during the course of employment in the factory in question. All other employees as mentioned in the chart have also suffered and now they are out of service also. 7. In view of the disposal of the First Appeals, Civil Application No.2167 of 2006 does not survive and the same stands disposed of. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.