### ESI Court cannot entertain cross-objections as the ESI Act does not provide such power.

The appellant/workman sustained an injury to the metatarsophalangeal joint arising out of his employment. The Medical Board assessed his permanent disability at 12%.

The Regional Director of the ESI Corporation challenged this assessment before the Employees Insurance (ESI) Court, Ahmedabad, in ESI Appeal No. 01 of 2009. The appellant filed cross-objections in that appeal.

The ESI Court dismissed the Corporation's appeal and confirmed the 12% disability, but did not consider the appellant's cross-objections.

The appellant moved the High Court under Section 82 of the ESI Act, challenging the legality of the ESI Court’s failure to adjudicate the cross-objections.

1. Whether the Employees Insurance Court has the power to entertain cross-objections filed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in light of the ESI Act and applicable rules.

2. Whether the non-consideration of cross-objections by the ESI Court gives rise to a substantial question of law under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act.

Section 78 of the ESI Act, 1947, which limits the ESI Court’s civil court powers to specific procedural matters such as summoning witnesses and discovery of documents.

Rule 47 of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959 (adopted by Gujarat), which makes the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) applicable only to matters of "procedure or admission of evidence" for which no specific provision in the rules exists.

The precedent Arul Theatre v. Regional Director, ESIC (1987) 55 FLR 3 (Bom), which held that only a subset of Civil Court powers are conferred upon the ESI Court.

The Court reasoned that Section 78 explicitly enumerates limited powers—such as enforcing attendance and recording evidence—to facilitate the gathering of evidence, rather than granting full plenary powers of a Civil Court.

Since the ESI Act is a self-contained statute that does not specifically provide for the filing of cross-objections, the procedural provisions of the CPC (like Order 41 Rule 22) cannot be imported to create a substantive right to file cross-objections.

The court found that Rule 47 only allows the CPC to fill gaps in general procedure or evidence admission, but does not expand the statutory jurisdiction of the ESI Court to include cross-objections.

The Court further held that the contention raised by the appellant regarding the non-consideration of cross-objections did not constitute a "substantial question of law" required for an appeal under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act. All interim reliefs were vacated.