FA/1650/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1650 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= UMATUNBIBI & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus ESI CORP AHMEDABAD - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS ASHA H GUPTA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HEMANT S SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 2nd November, 1993, passed by the learned ESI Court, in ESI Application No. 73/87, whereby the said application was partly allowed. FA/1650/1994 2/3 JUDGMENT 2.0. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. The appellant no. 1 is the widow of deceased Fakirbhai and appellants nos. 2 and 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased, who was working in the Card Department of Anil Synthetic Mill. It is the case of the appellant that due to unsuitable working conditions, Fakirbhai contracted from occupational disease and so was not keeping well. On 14th May, 1984, while discharging his duties, Fakirbhai expired. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased filed an application being ESI application No. 73 of 1987 before the learned ESI Court, for grant of compensation. 2.2. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the application. Hence, being dissatisfied with the impugned award, the appellants have approached this Court by way of this appeal. 3.0. Heard learned counsel for the parties. From the medical evidence on record at Exh. 27, it is true that the workman died on account of T.B.. However, there is no evidence on record to show that the workman had suffered FA/1650/1994 3/3 JUDGMENT from work or in other words had got the said disease on account of his occupation. It is true that the workman could get the said ailment from his occupation also. However, the said fact does not get support from the evidence of the Doctor, who was examined before the Court below. In absence of any medical evidence on record, it would not be possible for this Court to take contrary view than the one that has been taken by the Court below. Hence, in my view, the Court below was justified in passing the impugned award. 4.0 In view of the above, in my opinion, the impugned award passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper and no interference is required by this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/