High Court Kerala High Court

The Regional Director vs P.Narayanan on 16 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
The Regional Director vs P.Narayanan on 16 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Ins.APP.No. 57 of 2010()


1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.NARAYANAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :16/11/2010

 O R D E R
                       M.N.KRISHNAN, J
                   ----------------------------
                  INS.APPEAL.NO.57 OF 2010
                -----------------------------------
         Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010

                           JUDGMENT

This is an appeal preferred against the order of the

Employees Insurance Court Appeal No.1/2009. The

applicant before the court below was an employee of the

Malappuram Co-operative Spinning Mills limited. It is the

case of the appellant that due to continuous exposure to

cotton and fiber dust and other tiny particles, respiratory

problems developed with the result, the appellant had to

undergo treatment for chest diseases from various places.

On account of the fact that it almost become impossible to

continue the work and later it forced him to quit the job.

The Medical board of the ESI Corporation did not find any

disability with him , but the Medical Appellate Tribunal found

him 50% disability and in appeal the Employees Insurance

Court found him 100% disability and directed the

Corporation to give him the benefits. It is against that

decision the ESI Corporation has come up in appeal.

INS.APPEAL.NO.57 OF 2010 2

2. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the

respondent. The question that has to be resolved by this

Court is whether there is a total disablement for the

applicant to continue the job which he was previously doing.

Admittedly, the applicant was an employee of a spinning mill

which was engaged in spinning of cotton and polyester

yarn. According to the appellant the disease which he had

suffered is an occupational disease. The two Medical

certificates relied upon by the party one issued by the

Associated Professor, Department of T.B & Chest, Diseases,

Medical College Hospital would reveal that the applicant is

suffering from post tubercular sequela and Chronic

Obstructive Pulmonary disease. His ventilatory function

reveal less than 50% predicted values which suggest severe

air flow obstruction. Ext.P2 is another Medical Certificate

issued to show that exposure to dust may exacubate his

symptoms, so he is advised to avoid work in dusty and

polluted atmospheric and also to avoid excess physical

INS.APPEAL.NO.57 OF 2010 3

exertion. Coupled with the evidence of PW1 supported by

Ext.P1 and P2 it is manifestly clear that the applicant had

suffered an occupational disease which is getting aggravated

day by day and further exposure to the same environment

may prove fatal to him. The Medical Appellate Tribunal fixed

it 50%. So what has to be decided in this case is whether

the applicant had suffered occupational disease and

continuous engagement will aggravate the disease and

whether it will cause a permanent problem for him. The

doctors evidence and certificates clearly reveals that is

having chronic chest congestion with reduced functioning of

the system with a blockage of more than 50%. The

environment in which is expected to work is that of a

polluted atmosphere of cotton and polyester yarn. He

cannot be given any other job other than this for the reason

the atmosphere is of a spinning industry. Therefore, when

Ext.P1 and P2 are put together it is clear that a man is

having more than 50% of air block and is advised not to get

INS.APPEAL.NO.57 OF 2010 4

exposed to such a polluted atmosphere which makes a total

disability for the person. Therefore, in order to preserve his

life he has to resign his job. It is not a contumacious act on

his part. He will be more interested preserving his life

rather than exposing himself to death. So the leaving of the

job was on account of the suffering and there is nothing to

show that he could have been accommodated some where

else in that polluted atmosphere. Therefore, I agree with

the learned Employees Insurance Court judge and hold that

there is nothing to interfere with the order passed by him.

Therefore, appeal is dismissed but without costs.

M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE

pm