JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. BP Bhatt for appellant "Regional Manager, ESI Corporation, Ahmedabad and learned Advocate Mr. UI Vyas for respondents claimants. 2. By filing this appeal, judgment rendered by ESI Court, Bhavnagar in ESI Application No. 47 of 1996 Exh. 56 dated 31.12.2008 wherein ESI Court has held that applicant No.1 Hasinaben, widow of deceased Azizbhai Hasambhai and minor children No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are entitled to receive dependency benefits from opponents no. 1 and 2 with 8 per cent interest from 15.11.1993. 3. Mr. Bhatt, learned Advocate for appellant has raised contention that opponents had not adduced any evidence and lower court has not considered any evidence with regard to actual extent, nature and quantum of actual disability caused or suffered by respondent as a consequence of alleged injury. He further submitted that lower court has committed an error in arriving at conclusion only on basis of general nature of injury without examining any evidence whatsoever or without referring to any medical report whatsoever to determine as to what, according to documentary evidence on record, is extent and quantum of disability suffered by opponent persons by itself is no ground for awarding any permanent partial disability is determined in accordance with law. He submitted that in fact, court has not considered doctor's report which says that death was due to cardiac respiratory failure which is not connected with injury sustained on 3.11.1993, hence, court has not examined the doctor nor considered evidence on record and allowed application of wife of deceased and granted dependency benefit payment. He further submitted that ESI Court has committed error in not properly considering medical report given by Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar. He submitted that ESI Court has failed and committed an error in not appreciating and applying provisions laid down as per rules and regulations of ESI Act. He relied upon decision of Gujarat High Court given in judgment dated 11.7.2006 in Appeal (Civil) No. 6201/04 in which it is held that nature of job which workman was doing could not have caused any stress and strain and therefore, death due to heart attack cannot be said to have been caused by any accident arising out of and in course of his employment. At annexure A, appellant has produced copy of said judgment as referred to in Ground (D). At annexure A, appellant has produced copy of said judgment as referred to in Ground (D). Upon perusal of annexure-A, it appears that it is a judgment given in Appeal (Civil) No. 6201 of 2004 in case of Jyoti Ademma versus Plant Engineer, Nellore & Anr. on 11.7.2006 by Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Lokeshwar Singh Panta and it is not a judgment of Gujarat High Court and thus he has referred to decision of this court in grounds but attached decision of apex court as referred to above. He also submitted that trial court has committed gross error in not considering decision of this court and relevant evidence on record and basic error has been committed by trial court. Decision given by ESI Court is erroneous and required to be set aside and, therefore, first appeal has been filed by appellant under section 82 of ESI Act. He subsequently submitted that he has, in fact, been relying upon decision of Allahabad High Court in First Appeal from Order No. 3065 of 2003 in case of Sarvodaya Nagar Kanpur which, by mistake of clerk, has not been attached to appeal memo. Except these contentions recorded herein above, no other contention is raised by learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt before this court and no other decision has been cited by him before this court in support of aforesaid contentions. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Uday I. Vyas appearing for respondents claimants submitted that first appeal itself is not maintainable because before ESI Court, no question of law has been raised by appellant and in first appeal also, substantial question of law has not been raised by appellant and it is also not involved in this first appeal and, therefore, first appeal is not maintainable under section 82 of ESI Act. He submitted that ESI Court has decided matter on basis of facts, after appreciating evidence on record produced by both parties and this being finding of fact, this court may not interfere with such finding which has been decided by ESI Court. He also submitted that deceased was an employee of respondent no. 3 Steel Cast Ltd. and was working on 3rd November, 1993. He was insured employee having insurance No. 37/3092981. Relevant contribution was paid by employee to ESI Corporation on 3rd November, 1993. He also submitted that deceased was an employee of respondent no. 3 Steel Cast Ltd. and was working on 3rd November, 1993. He was insured employee having insurance No. 37/3092981. Relevant contribution was paid by employee to ESI Corporation on 3rd November, 1993. He submitted that deceased workman was having his shift in respondent no.3 company from 6.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. on 3rd November, 1993. During that time, at about 9.00 a.m., while he was coming down from staircase having height of 40 ft., he had fallen down from staircase of height of 40 ft. and dashed with casting material which was lying on earth at relevant time when accident occurred and received head injury and injury on cerebellum and due to said injury, he was admitted in hospital immediately after filling up form as required under ESI Act. Thereafter, he was given discharge on 4th November, 1993 from Sir T. Hospital at Bhavnagar and thereafter, again, he was admitted in hospital because his health was not good on 12th November, 1993 and immediately on next day i.e. On 13th November, 1993, he died and, therefore, according to him, accident occurred during course of employment while performing duties and at relevant time when he was having recess time, he was going for tea and had fallen down from staircase of height of 40 ft. and dashed with casting material having injury on head and cerebellum, rear portion of right ear and died because of said injury and therefore, it is accidental injury received by deceased for which, ESI Court has rightly examined matter after examining evidence on record and has rightly come to conclusion that workman died because of injury received by him while working as an employee of respondent no. 3 and, therefore, it is a clear fact finding given by trial court and, therefore, no interference is required by this court in this appeal. 5. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused impugned judgment delivered by ESI Court. Claimants are widow and five children, legal heirs and lawful dependents of deceased Ajizbhai Hasambhai. Deceased was workman of respondent NO. 3 and he was a permanent workman having lawful insurance under ESI Act bearing Insurance NO. 37/3092981. 5. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused impugned judgment delivered by ESI Court. Claimants are widow and five children, legal heirs and lawful dependents of deceased Ajizbhai Hasambhai. Deceased was workman of respondent NO. 3 and he was a permanent workman having lawful insurance under ESI Act bearing Insurance NO. 37/3092981. Deceased was in service of respondent no.3 factory on 3.11.1993 and while he was performing duties inservice, at that time, at about 7.00 hours of morning, all of sudden met with accident and at that time, Dhanjibhai Kanjibhai and Laxmanbhai Vithalbhai workmen were fellow workmen of deceased with him. In accident, deceased had received serious injuries on his head and on rear side of his right ear and therefore, opponent no.3 had immediately filled up form in respect of accident and was submitted to office of opponent no. 1 and 2 and deceased was admitted in Sir T. Hospital, Government Hospital at Bhavnagar and was given discharge from said hospital on 4.11.1993. However, because of injuries received by deceased during course of employment, health of deceased had deteriorated further and therefore, on 12.11.1993, he was admitted in Sir T Hospital at Bhavnagar as an indoor patient and during course of treatment, on 13.11.1993, he died. Right from date of accident 3.11.93 till he died, deceased had also taken treatment under Insurance Scheme of opponent no. 1 and 2 and, therefore, application was preferred before ESI Corporation for dependency benefit which was rejected by ESI Corporation and ultimately application was preferred by claimants before ESI Court. Before ESI Court, respondent employer had produced original documents in respect of salary certificate, age certificate and claimants also produced certain documents along with application namely documentary list Exh. 4, panchanama of local place of accident at Exh. 46, certificate of Bhavnagar Government Hospital at Exh. 14. Vide Exh. 13, preliminary injury certificate issued by Government Hospsital is produced. Vide Exh. 47, xerox of applicationmade by applicants on 29.3.94 is produced. Vide Exh. 46, copy of order refusing to pay dependency benefit passed by ESI Corporation is produced. Vide Exh. 49, school leaving certificate is produced which is showing birth date of deceased. Exh. 50 is death certificate of deceased. Exh. 51 is xerox copy of panchanama. Exh. 52 is pay slip of deceased for January, 1993. Exh. 94 is letter written by Regional Director, ESI Ahmedabad. Vide Exh. 49, school leaving certificate is produced which is showing birth date of deceased. Exh. 50 is death certificate of deceased. Exh. 51 is xerox copy of panchanama. Exh. 52 is pay slip of deceased for January, 1993. Exh. 94 is letter written by Regional Director, ESI Ahmedabad. Exh. 54 is xerox copy of accident report form No. 68. Exh.55 is letter written by ESI Corporation to opponent NO.3 company dated 8.2.94 repudiating its claim. Exh. 56 is copy of birth certificate of widow of deceased. Exh. 57 is death certificate of deceased. Exh. 58 is xerox copy of medical certificate dated 3.12.93. 6. Before ESI Court, ESI Corporation opponents no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement at Exh. 8 denying averments and certain aspects of matter but facts are not in dispute between parties. It was admitted by corporation that claim was received from claimants but claim was rejected. It was also submitted that in respect of case of deceased, case papers of report against medical referee are not helpful to claimants. Their case has been rejected, therefore, question of giving benefit of accident compensation is not arising. Deceased was an insured person under ESI Act and his Insurance number was 37/3092981 on 3.11.1993, when he was on duty. At that time, while he was going for taking tea, at that time, he had fallen down from staircase having height of about 40 ft. on casting material and received injury on head as well as cerebellum, on rear side of right ear and ultimately he was admitted in hospital, next day, he was given discharge because there was no external injury on body of deceased but ultimately he died on 13.11.1993. It was contended that in his death certificate, cause of death was Cardiac Respiratory failure due to Haemothesis. It was also contended that said case was placed before Medical Referee and it was reported by him that death was due to cardiac respiratory failure due to haemothesis which is not connected with injury sustained on 3.11.1993. Therefore, it was submitted by said opponents that in view of aforesaid facts, death of deceased was not because of injuries received by him on 3.11.1993 but he died because of other ailment which has been stated which cannot be said to be an employment injury. Therefore, it was submitted by said opponents that in view of aforesaid facts, death of deceased was not because of injuries received by him on 3.11.1993 but he died because of other ailment which has been stated which cannot be said to be an employment injury. It was contended by said opponents that injury received by insured person in factory on 3.11.1993 were injury of simple nature and accordingly, accident report was also submitted by opponent no.3. Not only that but as stated in medical certificate dated 3.12.93 issued by Sir T. Hospital, on 3.11.1993, insured (deceased) was having abrasion on right ear of size of one and half inch. Except that, there was no other injury. It was also contended that if it would have been injury of serious nature, then, he would not have been given discharge up-to 2 to 7 days from hospital. In short, deceased was admitted in hospital on 3.11.93 and was discharged on 4.11.93 with an advise to take rest for five days and, therefore, it was not accepted that it was an injury received during course of employment and therefore, case was rejected and, therefore, question of giving benefit to dependents is not arising. This decision of corporation is based on report of medical referee wherein cause of death is shown separately. Along with its written statement, corporation produced opinion of medical referee at Exh. 35, death certificate at Exh. 36, certificate of civil hospital, Bhavnagar at Exh. 37 dated 3.12.93. 7. Before ESI Corporation, opponent No.3 company appeared and filed its written statement at Exh. 49 and submitted that it be deleted as it is not a necessary party. It was submitted that deceased Ajizbhai Hasambhai was permanent workman performing duties since 1.11.1977 and his last wage was of Rs. 58.65 ps. Per day. It was also submitted by opponent no.3 that on3.11.93, deceased was having morning shift. His duty hours were starting from 6.00 a.m. and at 7.00 a. am., for going to take tea, he had fallen from staircase having height of about 40 ft. 58.65 ps. Per day. It was also submitted by opponent no.3 that on3.11.93, deceased was having morning shift. His duty hours were starting from 6.00 a.m. and at 7.00 a. am., for going to take tea, he had fallen from staircase having height of about 40 ft. and dashed with casting material and received head injury as well as injury on cerebellum, behind rear side of right ear and necessary form in this regard was submitted and then it was submitted by said opponent that ESI Corporation had informed them in writing that this injury is not falling within the definition of employment injury and, therefore, heirs of deceased are not entitled for any benefit of compensation. It was also submitted that ESI Contribution in respect of applicant was being paid regularly and at prescribed time, it was being deposited along with contribution of company. It was further submitted that finding of corporation that injury received through only machine while on duty could be considered as employment injury is contrary to principles laid down by Codified Law. 8. Before ESI Court, issues were framed at Exh. 10. Vide Exh. 11, widow of deceased Hasinaben Ajizbhai was examined. Vide Exh. 17, her witness Dhanjibhai Kanjibhai was examined and on behalf of insurance company, Medical Officer from Sir T.Hospital, Bhavnagar Dr. B.M. Shah was examined at Exh. 26. No witness was examined on behalf of Steel Cast. This evidence was considered by ESI Court. ESI Court also considered arguments made by advocates for parties. ESI Court appreciated oral and documentary evidence in para 7 of judgment. After considering evidence on record and arguments of learned advocates for parties, ESI Court considered fact of receiving injury by deceased on 3.11.93 due to falling down from staircase of height of about 40 ft. and dashed with casting material wherein he received injury on head and rear part of right ear and was immediately admitted in ESI Hospital and as his health was found to be serious, he was ultimately shifted in Sir T. Hospital as per opinion given by Doctor of ESI Corporation. Dr. and dashed with casting material wherein he received injury on head and rear part of right ear and was immediately admitted in ESI Hospital and as his health was found to be serious, he was ultimately shifted in Sir T. Hospital as per opinion given by Doctor of ESI Corporation. Dr. Bhanuben Shah had given medical treatment to deceased and he was discharged on next day and thereafter again he was admitted in hospital on 12.11.1993 because his health was deteriorating and thereafter, he was having complaint of headache but on next day i.e. on 13.11.93, he died during course of treatment. ESI Corporation received medical opinion of cause of death due to heart attack but they denied fact that concerned employee died due to injury received on 3.11.1993 and it was their case that it was failure of heart of concerned employee. According to claimants, deceased was not suffering from heart ailment prior to accident and there was no any record to that effect with ESI Corporation that deceased was suffering from heart ailment. Therefore, because of head injury and injury of abrasion on right ear of one and half inch created complications subsequently and ultimately died because of such complications on 13.11.1993 during course of medical treatment and, therefore, it was not simple injury as contended by ESI Corporation. Thereafter, ESI Court has considered documents produced by ESI Corporation, opinion of medical referee and also considered injury on rear side of right ear and abrasion of one and half inch and also head injury. It is necessary to note that after receiving injury deceased was not able to able to talk or speak with anybody. That was seriousness of injury received by employee on 3.11.1993. Dr. Bhanuben Shah was not able to make it clear why he was again admitted in hospital on 12.11.1993 if it was simple injury. That was not clarified by Dr. Bhanuben and thereafter, ESI Court considered evidence of witness Dhanjibhai at Exh. 17 and after analyzing evidence on record, ESI Court has come to conclusion that accident occurred during course of employment wherein deceased received injury on 3.11.1993 on head and rear side of right ear, abrasion of one and half inch that is injury on cerebellum. As per evidence of Dr. 17 and after analyzing evidence on record, ESI Court has come to conclusion that accident occurred during course of employment wherein deceased received injury on 3.11.1993 on head and rear side of right ear, abrasion of one and half inch that is injury on cerebellum. As per evidence of Dr. Bhanuben, she had not given treatment to deceased employee on 12.11.1993 in Government Hospital and as per her evidence, doctor who had given treatment to deceased on 12.11.93 was not examined before ESI Court. PM Report was not produced on record by ESI Corporation. Medical Referee on the basis of whose report, claim for compensation was repudiated by ESI Corporation was not examined by ESI Corporation before ESI Court. After appreciating all these aspects, ESI Court came to conclusion that injury received by deceased was employment injury which was not simple injury as alleged by ESI Corporation. 'Employment Injury' is defined under section 2 sub section (8) of ESI Act, 1948. As per section 2(8) of ESI Act, 'employment injury' means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment, being an insurable employment, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the limits of India. Therefore, 'employment injury' means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment, being an insurable employment. In facts of this case, ingredients of section 2(8) of ESI Act, 1948 are satisfied because after receiving injury during course of employment on 3.11.1993, insured died on 13.11.1993. After receiving injury on 3.11.1993, he was given treatment in ESI Hospital and then he was shifted in Government Hospital at Bhavnagar as per opinion of doctor of ESI Hospital and discharged on 4.11.93 and then in view of subsequent complication, deterioration of his health, again admitted on 12.11.93 and died on 13.11.93. These facts have been admitted by employer. Considering all these facts, ESI Court came to conclusion that deceased received employment injury on 3.11.93 and because of that employment injury, died on 13.11.1993 because he was having severe headache on 12.11.1993. In view of this finding given by ESI Court which is almost based on facts and evidence on record. No question of law was raised by ESI Corporation before ESI Court. In view of this finding given by ESI Court which is almost based on facts and evidence on record. No question of law was raised by ESI Corporation before ESI Court. Not only that, in present appeal also, appellant has not raised any substantial question of law and no such question is involved in present appeal. 9. In Sir Chunilal v. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1314 , larger bench of apex court decided what is substantial question of law. Relevant discussion made in para 6 and 7 of said judgment is reproduced as under: "6. We are in general agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court and we think that while the view taken by the Bombay High Court is rather narrow the one taken by the former High Court of Nagpur is too wide. The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and, substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally, settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law. 7. Applying these tests it would be clear that the question involved in this appeal, that is, the construction of the Managing Agency agreement is not only one of law but also it is neither simple nor free from doubt. In the circumstances we have no hesitation in saying that the High Court was in error in refusing grant the appellant a certificate that appeal involves a substantial question of law. It has to be borne in mind that upon the success or the failure of the contention of the parties they stand to succeed or fall with respect to their claim for nearly 28 lakhs of rupees. 10. It has to be borne in mind that upon the success or the failure of the contention of the parties they stand to succeed or fall with respect to their claim for nearly 28 lakhs of rupees. 10. In Transport Corporation of India v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and antoher, AIR 2000 SC 238 : (2000 Lab IC 203). Apex Court observed as under in paras 24 and 25: "24. Before parting with the discussion on this point, it is necessary to keep in view the salient fact that hte Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to provide benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity, employment injury and for certain other matters in relation thereto. It is enacted with a view to ensuring social welfare and for providing safe insurance cover to employees who were likely to suffer from various physical illnesses during the curse of their employment. Such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intention underlying its enactment. When two view are possible on its applicability to a given set of employees, that view, which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it. It is difficult to appreciate how it could be contended by the appellant with any emphasis that an employee working at its head office in Secunderabad would be govered by the beneficial sweep of the Act as admittedly the head office employees are covered by the Act, but once such an employee, whether working on the administrative side or connected with the actual transportation of goods, if transferred to the Bombay branch even with his consent , can not be governed by the beneficial provisions of the Act. 25. Dealing with this very Act, a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah (19964)4 ACR 265 :( AIR 1964 SC 1272 ), speaking through Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) held. accepting the contention of the learned counsel mr. Dolia, that (at p. 1277, [para 10 of AIR): "......It is a piece of social legislation intended to confer specified benefits on workmen to whom it applies, an so, it would be inappropriate to attempt, to construe the relevant provisions in a technical or a narrow sense. This position cannot be disputed. accepting the contention of the learned counsel mr. Dolia, that (at p. 1277, [para 10 of AIR): "......It is a piece of social legislation intended to confer specified benefits on workmen to whom it applies, an so, it would be inappropriate to attempt, to construe the relevant provisions in a technical or a narrow sense. This position cannot be disputed. But in dealing with the plea raised by Mr. Dolia that the section should be liberally construed, we cannot overlook the fact that the liberal construction must ultimatelyflow from the words used in the section. If the words used the section are capable of two constructions one of which is shown patently to assist the achievement of the object of the Act, Courts would be justified in prefering that construction to the other which may not be able to further the object of the Act...." As we have already seen earlier, the express phraseology of Section 2(9) of the Act defining an 'employee' read with Section 38 of the Act clearly projects the legislative intention of spreading the beneficial network of the Act sufficiently wide for covering all employees working for the main establishment covered by the Act even though actually stationed at different branches outside the State wherein the head office of the establishment is located. In any case, the said construction can reasonably flow from the aforesaid statutory provisions. If that is so, any other technical or narrower construction, even if permissible, cannot be countenanced, as that would frustrate the legislative intent underlying the enactment of such a beneficial social security scheme. Section 51A of ESI Act, 1948 is relating to presumption as to accident arising in course of employment. It provides that for the purposes of this Act, an accident arising in the course of an insured person's employment shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, also to have arisen out of that employment. Section 52 is pertaining to dependent's benefit. Sub section (1) of section 52 provides that if an insured person dies as a result of an employment injury sustained as an employee under this Act, dependent's benefit shall be payable. This is also a statutory benefits available to claimant in case when insured employee dies because of receiving employment injury. In facts of this case, deceased was on duty on 3.11.1993. This is also a statutory benefits available to claimant in case when insured employee dies because of receiving employment injury. In facts of this case, deceased was on duty on 3.11.1993. He fell down from staircase of height of about 40 ft. dashed with casting material received injury on head as well as cerebellum, on rear side of right ear which ultimately required treatment, he was admitted in hospital on 3.11.1993, discharged on 4.11.1993 and thereafter having serious complication and concerned employee was suffering from pain on head and that is why he was again admitted on 12th November, 1993 and on the next date, he died on 13th November, 1993, therefore, section 2 sub section (8) 'employment injury' is satisfied. Section 38, 51A and 52 are also required to be complied with by ESI Corporation being statutory benefits based on statutory presumption because there are no contrary evidence produced by ESI Corporation and, therefore, according to my opinion, ESI Court has not committed any error while deciding claim petition filed by respondents claimants. 11. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt also relied upon decision of Allahabad High Court in First Appeal from order No. 3065 of 2003 dated 18th May, 2006. He relied upon following observations made by Allahabad High Court in para 15 : "The Court below was therefore wrong in accepting LLR Hospital's report. Since the report of medical board constituted under the Act says that there was no disablement of any kind, appeal has to be allowed. 12. In light of facts of this case, in support of medical report of Board, no one has been examined to prove such report which certifies cause of death of concerned employee. Recommendation of medical board are not binding on ESI Court as per decision of MP High Court in case of Chhotelal and Regional Director of Employees State Insurance Corporation, Indore, reported in 1989 (58) FLR page 158. In para 5 of said decision, it is observed by MP High Court, Indore Bench as under : "5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this case deserves to be remitted back for deciding the matter afresh. In para 5 of said decision, it is observed by MP High Court, Indore Bench as under : "5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this case deserves to be remitted back for deciding the matter afresh. As this Court in the case of Factory Manager, JC Mills v. ESI Corporation (supra) [1987 J.L.J.281], has held that the recommendations, which are embodied was not bound by the ipse dixit of the Medical Board and abdicate its essential duty and responsibility, it was the duty o EI Court to consider whether the claim for permanent disablement was covered or not. A specific finding has to be arrived at by the ESI Court that the cervical spondylisis was ot because of the injury received by the injured person during the course of his employment and also that because of the spondylisis, a person working on looms cannot work. A permanent total disablement is to be judged from the nature of the job, which the workman was doing and if the disablement so caused, renders him unfit to do that job, it will be deemed to be total and not partial disablement (See the case of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Deo v. Shriniwas Sabta [ 1976 ACJ 141 : ( AIR 1976 SC 222 )] and the Division Bench decision of Gujarat High Court in Punambhai Khedabhai Patel v. G. Kenel Construction and another [1984 ACJ 739] and also a case of this Court in Factory Manager JC Mills v. ESI Corporation (supra). The findings of the EI Court on the points stated above are essential for determination for allowing or refusing the benefit under the Scheme of the Act to an employee. 13. Therefore, decision of Allahabad High Court which has been relied upon by learned Advocate Shri Bhatt cannot be accepted by this court simply on ground that medical report given by Board was not proved before ESI Court by ESI Corporation by leading proper evidence. Apart from that, ESI Court is not bound by any medical report. If claim is filed before ESI Court, ESI Court has to inquire independently whether employment injury has been caused to concerned employee or not. According to my opinion, employment injury received by deceased was having direct nexus and proximate cause for death of deceased. Apart from that, ESI Court is not bound by any medical report. If claim is filed before ESI Court, ESI Court has to inquire independently whether employment injury has been caused to concerned employee or not. According to my opinion, employment injury received by deceased was having direct nexus and proximate cause for death of deceased. Therefore, ESI Court has rightly examined issue based on evidence on record and has rightly given fact finding which cannot be considered to be baseless and perverse or arbitrary and, therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Bhatt cannot be accepted. Same are, therefore, rejected. Decision of Allahabad High Court is not applicable to facts of this case. Apart from that, section 82 of ESI Act clearly provides that no appeal shall lie from order of ESI Court if it is not involving substantial question of law. Looking to appeal memo and submissions made by learned advocate Mr. BP Bhatt, according to my opinion, in this case, even simple question of law has not been involved or pleaded in memo of appeal and, therefore, there is no substance in this appeal. ESI Court has perfectly considered evidence on record and has rightly given finding of fact based on facts and, therefore, no error is committed by ESI Court which would require interference of this court and same is required to be dismissed. 14. In result, this appeal is dismissed. 15. Today, first appeal has been dismissed by this court, therefore, no order is required to be passed in civil application for stay. Therefore, civil application for stay is disposed of accordingly. Appeal dismissed.