Judgment 1. The 3rd respondent in ESI Application No.32/2006 on the file of ESI Court Bangalore has come up in this appeal challenging the order dated 20.8.2007 passed in the said application directing reimbursement of a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the applicant towards medical expenses incurred by her for the treatment of her deceased son by respondents 1 and 3. For the sake of convenience parties to this appeal are referred to as they are referred to before ESI Court. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are: The case of applicant is that her son Basavaraj was working with M/s. R.P. Agency, a private establishment which was carrying out work within the premises of NAL, 2nd respondent. When her son was discharging his duty within the premises of NAL, he developed breathlessness and swelling of his feet. Immediately, he was shifted to Narayana Hrudayalaya, where it was diagnosed that he has congenital heart decease, which require valve replacement. Accordingly, her son underwent treatment in Narayana Hrudayalaya for replacement of valve and other related parameters and while he was still inpatient in said hospital, he succumbed to said ailment on 14.12.2006. 3. It is her case that while he was in hospital from the date of his admission till date of his death, she incurred huge amount of money towards his treatment. Since establishment in which her son was employed being covered under ESI Act and contribution was deducted from out of his salary, applicant approached ESI Court seeking reimbursement of amount spent by her which is stated to be around a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the said proceedings, applicant arrayed Director, ESI Corporation (Medical Services), who reimburses expenses incurred for any specialized treatment of employees working in the establishments covered under the Act, Administrative Officer, NAL within whose premises her son developed ailment and Regional Director, ESI Corporation who regularly collected contribution from employer of her deceased son for which her son was contributing. 4. In the said proceedings, after pleadings were complete, issues were framed, evidence was recorded on behalf of applicant and as well as respondents. 4. In the said proceedings, after pleadings were complete, issues were framed, evidence was recorded on behalf of applicant and as well as respondents. Thereafter, on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record ESI court allowed the application in part ordering reimbursement of a sum of Rs.75,000/- to applicant holding that the State Government is duty bound to reimburse the expenses incurred by the employees working in the establishments covered under ESI Act whenever they spent money for the services which are not generally available in ESI Hospital and which are deemed to be special services for which they have incurred expenses from out of their pocket. 5. Considering the fact that applicant’s son having suffered the heart ailment which required special treatment from Narayana Hrudayalaya and wherein the applicant has spent nearly little more than a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for his treatment she is entitled to seek reimbursement of the same. Accordingly, the application was allowed fixing liability to pay the same on 1st and 3rd respondents. 6. The said order is not challenged by 1st respondent. It is only 3rd respondent who has come up in this appeal. According to appellant, instead of fastening liability on both 1st and 3rd respondents ESI court should have fixed liability to pay compensation on 1st respondent which is the establishment coming directly under the supervision of State Government which is liable to reimburse the said amount in view of Section 58 of the Act. 7. This appeal has come up for admission today. After hearing the counsel for appellant and on perusal of order impugned it is seen that entitlement of applicant to seek reimbursement is not in dispute. The fact that applicant has lost her son who was employed in an establishment which was covered under ESI Act is also not in dispute. The only point that is required to be decided in whether order passed by ESI Court regarding fixing liability of on 1st and 3rd respondent is required to be modified by fastening liability on 1st respondent only to reimburse the amount awarded by the ESI Court. 8. No doubt, reading of Section 58 clearly discloses that applicant is entitled to seek reimbursement from State Government and 1st respondent being agency constituted for the aforesaid purpose, it is responsible to reimburse the amount awarded by the ESI Court. 8. No doubt, reading of Section 58 clearly discloses that applicant is entitled to seek reimbursement from State Government and 1st respondent being agency constituted for the aforesaid purpose, it is responsible to reimburse the amount awarded by the ESI Court. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case it may not be proper to drive the applicant from pillar to post for the purpose of recovering her legitimate claim which is quantified by ESI Court at Rs.75,000/-. 9. Therefore, this Court find that there is no justification to admit this appeal and to decide the right of applicant to receive the award amount from 1st respondent or 3rd respondent. Instead, this Court while dismissing this appeal as not fit for admission in the facts and circumstances would direct appellant/3rd respondent to pay entire amount to applicant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and to recover the same from 1st respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.