### Appeal Under Section 82(2) ESI Act Is Not Maintainable Absent a Substantial Question of Law

The respondent, an employee of M/s. Odhav Enviro Project Ltd., sustained a right leg injury during his employment on February 26, 2019

The Medical Board initially assessed his functional loss at 0%, noting a united fracture of the right patella with normal movement

On appeal, the Medical Appeal Tribunal (MAT) reversed this, assessing a 4% disability

The ESI Corporation challenged this at the ESI Court, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the 4% assessment

The Corporation subsequently filed this First Appeal before the High Court, asserting that the lower court erred in equating permanent partial disablement with functional loss

Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 82 of the ESI Act in the absence of a substantial question of law

Whether the ESI Court exceeded its jurisdiction or provided insufficient reasoning in upholding the MAT’s findings

Whether the ESI Court correctly interpreted Section 2(15-a) regarding "permanent partial disablement"

Section 82(2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, which mandates that an appeal to the High Court lies only if it involves a "substantial question of law"

The term "substantial question of law" is interpreted pari passu with Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code

The ESI Act is social welfare legislation requiring a liberal and beneficial interpretation in favor of the employee [ESI Corporation v. M/s Radhika Theatre]

Findings on disability and wage records are primarily questions of fact, not law [Motor & General Finance Limited v. Director General]

The Court determined that the appellant failed to raise any "substantial question of law" as required by Section 82(2)

A substantial question must be debatable, not previously settled, and arise from sustainable findings of fact

The appellant's arguments were found to be confined to questions of fact—specifically the degree of functional disability assessed—which do not warrant interference unless proven perverse or contrary to settled law

The Court observed that the ESI Court had provided a well-reasoned order consistent with the objectives of the Act

Applying the principle of liberal construction for beneficial statutes, the Court viewed the Corporation's appeal as a technical attempt to avoid statutory liability rather than a legitimate legal dispute

The High Court dismissed the First Appeal, confirmed the 4% disability assessment, vacated all interim stays, and directed the return of records to the lower court