Section 82 appeals lie only on substantial questions of law, not factual reappraisal.

The respondent-employee, holding Insurance Card No. 37/194043, sustained injuries to four fingers and the thumb of his left hand during employment.

The ESI Medical Board assessed his physical disability at 25%; on challenge, the Medical Appeal Tribunal enhanced it to 45%.

The employee and the ESI Corporation filed separate appeals before the ESI Court, Ahmedabad. By a common judgment, the ESI Court upheld the Medical Appeal Tribunal’s finding that the employee had suffered 45% permanent disability and dismissed both appeals.

The ESI Corporation challenged that common judgment before the Gujarat High Court under Section 82(2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, contending, inter alia, that the ESI Court had erred in law, lacked jurisdiction, and ought to have remanded the matter for reassessment by the Medical Board.

1. Whether the appeal under Section 82(2) of the ESI Act involved a substantial question of law warranting interference with the ESI Court’s findings

2. Whether the ESI Court erred in confirming the 45% disability assessment and in not remanding the matter to the Medical Board for reassessment

3. Whether a single appeal was maintainable against a common judgment disposing of two separate appeals before the ESI Court

Section 82(2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 permits an appeal to the High Court from an order of the ESI Court only where the matter involves a “substantial question of law”.

The expression is to be understood substantially in the same manner as under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure: the question must be debatable, not already settled by binding law, and materially affect the rights of the parties; mere disagreement with factual findings is insufficient.

Relying on Regional Director, ESIC v. The Mormugao Handling Agents Association , 2009 Supreme (Bom) 1353, the Court held that interference is impermissible unless the findings are contrary to law or facts on record, or are otherwise perverse.

The Court also relied on Motor & General Finance Ltd. v. Director General , 2025 Supreme (Online) (Del) 9485, reiterating that an appeal under Section 82(2) is confined to substantial questions of law and does not ordinarily permit reassessment of pure findings of fact.

The High Court found that the questions raised by the ESI Corporation did not disclose any substantial question of law.

The assessment of disability was based on the employee’s physical injuries and had been considered first by the Medical Board and thereafter by the Medical Appeal Tribunal, whose enhanced assessment was affirmed by the ESI Court on the facts.

The appellant’s contention that the employee had continued working after the injury was not sufficient to displace those factual findings or establish legal perversity.

The Court further observed that the ESI Court had disposed of two separate appeals, and therefore a challenge to both orders ought ordinarily to have been brought through two separate appeals; the single appeal was consequently not maintainable on that ground as well.

In any event, even on merits, the limited appellate jurisdiction under Section 82(2) did not permit interference merely because another factual view was possible.

It also held that the single appeal challenging the common judgment disposing of two separate appeals was not maintainable.

The First Appeal was dismissed, the ESI Court’s judgment confirming the employee’s 45% permanent disability was affirmed, and any interim relief was vacated.

Any pending civil application was disposed of as having become infructuous.