Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2872/2008 3/ 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
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 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.
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/*
Top