JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present first appeal is filed by the appellant-ESI Corporation under sec. 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948 challenging the judgment and order in ESI Application No. 42 of 1997 by the ESI Court dated 28.10.2005 granting the application of the respondent workman. The appellant has challenged the said order posing substantial questions of law as required under sec. 82 and stated in the memo along with the grounds. Heard learned advocate Shri Hemant Shah for the appellant ESI Corporation. 2. Learned advocate Shri Shah referred to the background of facts and submitted that the court below has committed an error in not considering that the deceased had not died due to employment injury or occupational disease but he died because of bilateral Pul. TB. He emphasised that he was suffering from the decease since 1991 and expired on 25.6.1995 and therefore it cannot be said that he died due to occupational disease. Learned advocate Shri Shah strenuously submitted that it cannot be said to be en employment injury as provided for the purpose of benefit under the ESI Act. In support of his contentions he has referred to the papers as well as the reasons recorded by the court below and submitted that the court below has committed an error in granting the application. He therefore submitted that the present appeal may be allowed. 3. Though the submissions have been made, the background of facts as recorded in the impugned judgment clearly suggest that he was working in glazing department and was working for about 8 years in a ceramic factory which would be the cause for such disease. The particles or dust in such industry would cause breathing problem and therefore the occupational disease as defined in Part-C of the ESI Act includes 'silicosis'. It was in this background he was getting treatment by the ESI doctor and thereafter he died in 1995. The court below, therefore, considering this aspect, particularly the occupational disease, has discussed that the deceased was also referred to the Medical Board for the purpose of medical examination and the employer had referred him in the ESI General Hospital and the opinion was given by the Occupational Health Centre. However, as the applicant was not given his dues the claim was made and ultimately the court passed the impugned order. 4. However, as the applicant was not given his dues the claim was made and ultimately the court passed the impugned order. 4. The appellant Corporation has produced the documents with the list, Exh. 12, and the evidence of the partner of the employer is also considered at exh. 47. The applicant is also examined at exh. 52 and on appreciation of the material and evidence as discussed at length the court below had granted the application accepting that the deceased was working in a ceramic factory where silicosis is an occupational disease and there was every possibility of such disease for the persons working in the ceramic factory. Merely because the person may have survived for some time is not relevant. What is required to be considered for the purpose of the ESI Act is whether the deceased has suffered the injury which could be covered under the occupational disease. Therefore, bilateral Pul. TB is accepted as an occupational disease which has also been accepted judicially by the High Court while deciding First Appeal No. 3449/99 to 3502/99, the judgment of which has also been referred to and discussed by the court below and therefore after considering the relevant aspects the finding has been given that the deceased has died due to occupational disease which would entitle the applicant to make such a claim under the provisions of sec. 75 & 77 of the ESI Act. 5. The High Court in a judgment in First Appeal No. 3449/99 to 3502/99 (Coram: KR VYAS, J.) dated 26.10.1999 has focused on this very issue referring to the same disease with the details which has also been referred to in the impugned judgment. Therefore, without any further elaboration, as it is concluded and accepted that silicosis is an occupational disease covered by the Act, the judgment and order by the court below allowing the application filed by the wife of the deceased cannot be said to be erroneous and the substantial questions of law as posed cannot be said to be relevant when the same substantial questions of law posed have been conclusively decided by the earlier judgment of the High Court as stated above. In the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.