Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed by the ESI Corporation as against the order passed by the ESI Court at Puducherry dated 23.08.2013 in ESIOP.No.5 of 2009, allowing the petition filed by the 1st respondent herein/employee under Section 75(1)(e) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short ESI Act), by assessing the total disability suffered by the 1st respondent/employee at 70% and consequently, directing the appellant/ESI Corporation to make the payment of Standard Disablement Benefit to the 1st respondent/employee from the date of accident. 2. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner before the ESI Court at Puducherry. It is the case of the 1st respondent/employee that since the year 2002, he was working as a Welder under the 2nd respondent herein/employer, who is engaged in manufacturing and production of trailers. On 27.01.2005 at about 2.30 hours, while the 1st respondent/employee was working in third shift at the welding block, he fell down and sustained injuries. Hence, he was rushed to the Muthirapalayam ESI dispensary, where he was treated as outpatient. Since there was no recovery from the injury, he was referred to ESI Hospital at Gorimedu, where also he was treated as outpatient. As there was no sign of recovery, on 28.02.2005 X-ray was taken on his right leg and other investigation procedures were undertaken. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/employee continued to take treatment on 03.03.2005, 15.09.2005, 17.11.2005, 16.11.2005 and 17.11.2005. Subsequently, the 1st respondent was referred to Government Hospital at Puducherry and thereafter, the 1st respondent/employee was referred to MIOT Hospital at Chennai, where an estimate of Rs.2,29,000/- was prepared for the medical treatment, but the ESI Corporation has sanctioned only a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-. Thereafter, on 10.04.2006 the 1st respondent's right leg was amputated below the knee and he was discharged from the hospital on 03.07.2006 and he was forced to continue the treatment. The accident had occurred only during the course of employment and the 1st respondent's right leg was amputated causing total permanent disability and he has been incapacitated to do the works as he was doing prior to the accident. The appellant herein and the respondents 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent. The appellant herein and the respondents 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent. Hence, the 1st respondent filed the petition before the ESI Court for the following reliefs:- (a) to direct the 3rd respondent and the appellant herein to assess the 'total permanent disability' through medical board. (b) to direct the appellant and the respondents 2 & 3 to make the payment of 'standard disablement benefit' from the date of accident. (c) to pay cost of the petition and grant any other just and necessary reliefs. 3. Opposing the case of the 1st respondent/employee, the ESI Corporation filed a counter before the ESI Court contending that though the 1st respondent claimed that he met with an accident on 27.01.2005 during the third shift at Welding Block, the ESI Corporation has not received any report with regard to the alleged accident from the employer of the 1st respondent viz., the 2nd respondent herein, as per the Regulation 68 of the ESI Regulations; the 1st respondent did not make any claim for accident benefit by producing evidence of sickness or Temporary Disablement as provided under Regulation 53 of ESI Regulations; the 1st respondent has been issued with medical certificate for the period from 18.11.2005 to 24.03.2006 by the competent medical authority with the diagnosis 'Sarcoma @ Tibia'. Based on the said certificate and the claim made by the 1st respondent, the ESI Corporation has disbursed Sickness Benefit payment at the rate of Rs.73/- for the period from 20.11.2005 to 31.12.2005 after observing waiting period for the initial two days and at the rate of Rs.83/-for the period from 01.01.2006 to 21.02.2006. It is the defence of the ESI Corporation that the disability suffered by the victim was not caused due to the employment injury; the 1st respondent was suffering from Osteogenic Sarcoma (Rt) Proximal Tibia i.e., Bone Cancer and the amputation of his right leg below the knee was not due to any injury sustained by him in the accident. Thus, they sought of dismissal of the petition. 4. The respondents 2 & 3 herein have also filed separate counter statements before the ESI Court denying their liability to pay the compensation to the victim/1st respondent. 5. In order to prove their case before the ESI Court, the 1st respondent herein/employee examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 19 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. 4. The respondents 2 & 3 herein have also filed separate counter statements before the ESI Court denying their liability to pay the compensation to the victim/1st respondent. 5. In order to prove their case before the ESI Court, the 1st respondent herein/employee examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 19 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. On the side of the ESI Corporation, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and a copy of the declaration form and a copy of the medical certificate were marked as Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2. 6. Pending the said petition, the 1st respondent/employee had taken out an interlocutory application in I.A.No.45 of 2011 to refer him to the medical board to assess the nature of injury sustained by him. In the said IA, the ESI Court has passed an order on 13.12.2011 referring the 1st respondent/employee to the medical board. Pursuant to the same, after examining the 1st respondent/employee, the medical board had submitted a report to the effect that the 1st respondent suffered disability at 70%. 7. After analysing the entire evidence adduced by both sides and the report submitted by medical board, the ESI Court has fixed the disability suffered by the 1st respondent/employee at 70% and held that the 1st respondent/employee is entitled to get standard disablement benefits from the appellant herein. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the ESI Corporation. 8. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/ESI Corporation that though the alleged accident had occurred on 27.01.2005, the right leg of the 1st respondent/employee below the knee was amputated only on 10.04.2006 i.e., after a period of 1 year 3 months; absolutely, there is no documentary evidence to show that the 1st respondent was taking continuous treatment only on account of the injury said to have been sustained by him in the alleged accident. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/ESI Corporation that OP chit issued by the ESI Dispensary at Muthiraipalayam (Ex.P.1) as well as the discharge summary issued by the MIOT Hospital at Chennai (Ex.P.11) would show that the 1st respondent's right leg was amputated only due to the disease Osteogenic Sarcoma (Rt) Proximal Tibia i.e., Bone Cancer. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/ESI Corporation that OP chit issued by the ESI Dispensary at Muthiraipalayam (Ex.P.1) as well as the discharge summary issued by the MIOT Hospital at Chennai (Ex.P.11) would show that the 1st respondent's right leg was amputated only due to the disease Osteogenic Sarcoma (Rt) Proximal Tibia i.e., Bone Cancer. Therefore, it is clear that the amputation of the right leg of the 1st respondent was not due to the employment injury, as contemplated under Section 2(8) of the ESI Act to award permanent disability benefit to him; therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant/ESI Corporation, the impugned order passed by the ESI Court is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/employee submitted that the 1st respondent's right leg below the knee was amputated only due to the employment injury sustained by him during the course of employment on 27.01.2005; hence, no infirmity could be found in the order passed by the ESI Court. In this regard, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, by relying on the judgment reported in (1987) 55FLR 772 (P & H) = (1995) IIILLJ 593 P H [Harjinder Kaur (Smt) and ors Vs. Employees' State Insurance], submitted that in the said judgment, in an identical issue, when the ESI Corporation had resisted the claim of the claimants stating that the death of the employee was not due to the employment injury, the said contention was rejected by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana and a direction was given to the ESI Corporation to pay the compensation legal heirs of the deceased therein. Thus, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that by relying upon the principles laid down in the said judgment, the Court below has fixed the disability suffered by the 1st respondent at 70% and held that the 1st respondent is entitled to get the standard disablement benefit from the ESI Corporation. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/employee that the appeal as against the order passed by the ESI Court could be entertained only if there is any substantial question of law involved; in the instant case, no substantial question of law is involved. Thus, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Thus, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. I have carefully heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side, the following substantial question of law arose for consideration in this appeal: Whether the ESI Court is correct in accepting the Report submitted by the Medical Board, without assigning any reason whatsoever, and holding that the 1st respondent/employee is entitled to get Standard Disablement Benefit from the ESI Corporation? 13. It is the case of the 1st respondent/employee that he was working as a welder under the 2nd respondent/industry and on 27.01.2005 at about 2.30 hours, while he was working in the third shift in the premises of welding block, he fell down and sustained injuries and he was rushed to the ESI Dispensary at Muthirapalayam and subsequently, he was referred to ESI Hospital at Gorimedu and thereafter, he was admitted in Government Hospital at Puducherry and from Government Hospital at Puducherry, he was referred to MIOT Hospital at Chennai, wherein his right leg below the knee was amputated. Since he had sustained injury during the course of the employment, he filed a petition before the ESI Court seeking compensation. 14. But, the case of the 1st respondent was resisted by the ESI Corporation contending that they have not received any notice from the 2nd respondent/employer with regard to the alleged accident said to have occurred on 27.01.2005; but, the medical report would show that the 1st respondent was suffering from Osteogenic Sarcoma (Rt) Proximal Tibia i.e., Bone Cancer; in fact, the amputation of his right leg below the knee was done only due to the said disease. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant/ESI Corporation has also invited the attention of this Court to the discharge summary issued by the MIOT Hospital, wherein it has been stated as follows:- DIAGNOSIS: 8 DAYS S/P BELOW KNEE AMPUTATION DONE ON RIGHT LEG FOR OSTEOGENIC SCARCOMA Even in the OP chit issued by the ESI Dispensary at Muthirapalayam, the following entry has been made:- “Osteogenic Scarcoma (Rt) Tibia” 15. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/ESI Corporation that none of the documents produced on the side of the 1st respondent is sufficient enough to show that the 1st respondent's right leg was amputated only due to the employment injury said to have been sustained by him in the accident occurred on 27.01.2005. On the other hand, the said amputation was only due to the disease Osteogenic Sarcoma (Rt) Proximal Tibia i.e., Bone Cancer. 16. It is no doubt, pending the ESIOP, the 1st respondent was subjected to medical board to assess the disability suffered by the 1st respondent. The Medical Board has also submitted a report stating that the 1st respondent is suffering from 70% disability. Based on the said report, the petition filed by the 1st respondent was allowed by the ESI Court. But, on perusal of the said report submitted by the Medical Board, I find that the medical board has only certified the percentage of disability suffered by the 1st respondent and it does not speak about the cause of disability. But, the ESI Court, by relying upon the report submitted by the Medical Court, has passed the impugned order stating that disability suffered by the 1st respondent is at 70% and he is entitled to get standard disablement benefit from the ESI Corporation. 17. But, in my considered opinion, when the evidence on record would clearly show that the 1st respondent's right leg was amputated only due to the disease Osteogenic Sarcoma (Rt) Proximal Tibia i.e., Bone Cancer and not due to the employment injury, the ESI Court ought to have dismissed the petition filed by the 1st respondent. 18. Though the learned counsel for the 1st respondent relied upon the judgment reported in (1987) 55FLR 772 (P & H) = (1995) IIILLJ 593 P H [Harjinder Kaur (Smt) and ors Vs. Employees' State Insurance] and submitted that in an identical issue, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana directed the ESI Corporation to pay the compensation legal heirs of the deceased therein, the factual aspects of that case would show that, in that case, the deceased therein was employed as a driver in the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar and he was covered under the provisions of Section 2(9) of the ESI Act and he was entitled to the benefits provided under the various provisions of the act. On 7.1.1978 he drove the bus to a village, where he had passed the night intervening 7th and 8th of January 1978. At night time, he slept inside the bus. He was found dead on the morning of 8th January 1978. His death was duly reported to the Police Station at Lopoke. The postmortem examination conducted by the doctor of the civil hospital mentioned the cause of his death as 'heart failure'. When a claim was made by the legal heirs of the deceased, the ESI Corporation denied their case stating that there is no material on record to show that his death had arisen out of his employment. The trial Court by accepting the defence of the ESI Corporation had dismissed the petition holding that there was no material on the record to show that his death was arisen out of his employment. But, on appeal, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed the appeal holding that the death arose out of the employment of the deceased. 19. The factual aspect of that case would show that in that case, no contra evidence was available to prove that death of the employee was not due to the employment. But, in the instant case, discharge summary as well as OP Chit would go to show that the 1st respondent's right leg below the knee was amputated only due to Osteogenic Sarcoma (Rt) Proximal Tibia i.e., Bone Cancer. Therefore, factual aspects of that case could not be made applicable to the present facts of the case. 20. In fact, in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant/ESI Corporation, reported in 2006 ACJ 1520 [ESI Corporation Vs. Sainaba], in a similar situation, the Kerala High Court held that if a person dies due to natural disease, it has no connection with the employment and the ESI Corporation is not liable to pay the compensation for dependents benefit if the death has no connection with the employment. 21. In my considered opinion, in the instant case, when contra evidence is available to show that the injury sustained by the victim was not due to the accident said to have been occurred during the course of the employment, absolutely, there is no justification in directing the ESI Corporation to pay the compensation amount. 22. 21. In my considered opinion, in the instant case, when contra evidence is available to show that the injury sustained by the victim was not due to the accident said to have been occurred during the course of the employment, absolutely, there is no justification in directing the ESI Corporation to pay the compensation amount. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.