JUDGMENT
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.
1. It is now 24 years since the employee in the Elgin Mill No. 2, at Kanpur, sustained an injury in his left eye resulting in diminishing of the vision and has still not been granted compensation. The Government is supposed a Model Employer and such inordinate delay is indefensible. It is surprising in the extreme that the Medical Board despite the finding ( see page 8/8 of the medical board Report) that there was disablement of permanent nature in the vision of the left eye of the worker did not report the disablement of any kind as provided in the provisions of the Act.
2. The Entry in Second Schedule under Section 2(15A) and 15B of The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 as the then in force with regard to loss of vision and earning capacity is as follows:
At Serial No. 32:- Lass of vision of one eye without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the other being normal- Percentage of loss of Earning capacity-30.
3. Clearly, therefore, with regard to schedule, there was partial disablement and yet for some un-known reasons, the Medical Board refused to acknowledge the same, while the Eye Surgeon, E.S.I. Hospital, Kanpur vide report dated 7.11.1983 had found loss of vision to the extent of 6/36 in the left eye of the workman. The Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur, therefore, while allowing Appeal vide order dated 81 of 1991 of the worker respondent vide order dated 1.8.1991, rightly rectified the egregiously erroneous view of the Medical Board that the worker was not entitled to any benefit of disablement.
4. The contention from the side of the appellant, E.S.I. Corporation against the aforenoted finding of the Employees Insurance Court is that since the Medical Board had found that there was no disability, the Court could not substitute its own view and grant relief. If the court cannot do that what is the Court mend for ! The court has to see that justice is done. If the Medical Board turns dishonest, the court must intervene to undo the injustice. There is no bar in the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, that the court cannot interfere and determine the nature of the disablement. The Court has accepted report of the Eye Surgeon and has determined 30% as loss of earning capacity permanently of the worker which, in the circumstances, is just and proper.
5. It is unfortunate that an appeal in the matter was filed by the E.S.I. Corporation. It is hoped that in future, they will take more humane view.
6. The appeal is dismissed with costs which are fixed at R-5000/-.