FA/2872/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2872 of 2008 With FIRST APPEAL No. 2873 of 2008 To FIRST APPEAL No. 2878 of 2008 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 ? ========================================================= E.S.I.C. REGIONAL DIRECTOR & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus KALABEN KANUBHAI BHATT - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HEMANT S SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. MR SUBRAMANIAM IYER for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/2872/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 1.0 These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, E.S.I. Court, Vadodara in E.S.I. Applications No. 29/2003, 32/2003, 34/2003, 36/2003, 37/2003, 40/2003 and 42/2003 dated 16.11.2006 whereby, the said applications were allowed. 2.0 The facts in brief are that the opponents, original applicants, had filed individual applications before the E.S.I. Court, Vadodara claiming dependency benefits on the ground that their deceased husbands had expired as they were suffering from a disease called Silicosis which was caused during the course of employment. 2.1 On completion of the pleadings and after hearing the parties, the E.S.I. Court allowed the applications preferred by the opponents. Hence, these appeals. 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective FA/2872/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT parties and perused the documents on record. The main contention raised before this Court is that the applications preferred before the E.S.I. Court were barred by limitation and that the Court below ought not to have entertained the same. It is also contented that the said aspect of limitation is a pure question of law and deserves to be adjudicated with in view of the provisions of the E.S.I. Act, 1948. 4.0 Having gone through the impugned orders, I am of the opinion that the contention regarding limitation shall not hold any ground as the same was not raised before the Court below at the relevant point of time. The said contention has been raised for the first time only before this Court in these Appeals, which is not permissible. In my view, the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. Moreover, as no issue was framed before the Court below regarding the said aspect, it could not be permitted to be canvassed in these appeals. FA/2872/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT 5.0 Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind the object and reasons of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, these appeals do not deserve to be entertained. No substantial questions of law have been raised in these appeals within the meaning of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6.0 For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*