JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. The appellant-Employee's State Insurance Corporation ("E.S.I." for short) has filed these appeals under Section 82(2) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") challenging the impugned judgment and awards dated 20.5.2004 and 11.12.2003 passed in E.S.I. Application Nos. 5 of 2003, 6 of 2003, 20 of 2003, 19 of 2003, 8 of 2003, 9 of 2003, 10 of 2003, 11 of 2003, 13 of 2003, 12 of 2003, 14 of 2003, 15 of 2003 17 of 2003, 16 of 2003, 18 of 2003, 25 of 2003 and 52 of 2002 passed by Employee's Insurance Court, Vadoara ("E.I. Court" for short) whereby, the E.I. Court directed E.S.I. Corporation to pay 12% interest to the original claimants from the date of the disability considered by Special Medical Board with cost of Rs.200/-. 2. In view of the fact that identical issue involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment by treating First Appeal No.1400 of 2005 as lead matter. In the said lead matter being Special Civil Application No.1400 of 2005, the appellant has prayed for below mentioned reliefs:- "9 (a) Your Lordships may quash and set aside the judgment and order of paying interest and cost passed by Ld. E.I. Court Vadodara in ESI application No.5 of 2003 dated 20.5.2004. (b) Your Lordships may direct Ld. E.I. Court not to pass payment of interest in such cases in which the payment disablement benefits has been regulated as per the provisions of Regulation 76A of the ESI Act, 1948. (c) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this first appeal. (d) Your Lordships may pass just and proper order/s that may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 3. The facts giving rise to present appeals are that the insured claimants-respondents herein suffered from the disease namely Silicosis during their employment with M/s. Alembic Glass and therefore, the Special Medical Board awarded disability of 0% to 10% during the year 1985-1987 and accordingly, all the claimants of present appeals are being paid the permanent disability benefits. 3.1 Thereafter, the appeals preferred before MAT in the year 1996-2000 almost after 11-13 years and MAT under Section 54A has awarded enhanced disability to the claimants ranging from 10-80%. 3.1 Thereafter, the appeals preferred before MAT in the year 1996-2000 almost after 11-13 years and MAT under Section 54A has awarded enhanced disability to the claimants ranging from 10-80%. The same were challenged before E.I. Court in 2001, which was confirmed / modified to the extent of 60-80% disability, on the basis of the judgment and order dated 26.10.1999 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 3449 of 1999. 3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and awards of the E.I. Court, the claimants preferred First Appeals before this Court and the same were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.7.2002 by enhancing the disability to 100%. On the basis of the said judgment, benefits have been released to the claimants. Thereafter, the claimants filed E.S.I. Applications before E.I. Court claiming interest on balance amount paid belatedly in the year 2003. 3.3 The E.I. Court after hearing both the sides and after evaluating the evidence placed on record has passed impugned judgment and awards granting 12% interest on the belated payment from the date of award passed by the Medical Board. 3.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and awards, the appellant E.S.I. Corporation has preferred present group of appeals. 4. Heard Mr. A.V. Nair, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Subramaniam Aiyer, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. 5. Mr. A.V. Nair, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appeals deserve consideration, as the appeals were already admitted by this Court vide common order dated 8.3.2006 and interim relief was also granted by this Court on condition of deposit of awarded amount. 5.1 Mr. A.V. Nair, learned counsel for the appellants referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of E.S.I.C. vs. Vasantbhai Bhudarbhai Parmar , 2007 1 GLR 879 and urges that if the substantial question of law is not framed at the time of admission, then it can be framed at the time of final hearing and can be decided at the time of final hearing. He emphasized upon the observations made by this Court in paragraph No.4 of the said decision, which reads as under:- "(4) It is required to be noted that if substantial question of law is to be framed in an appeal under section 82 of the ESI act as like the appeal under section 100 of cpc, the appeal is required to be heard only on the questions so formulated, and the court may permit the parties to argue on such questions not formulated if it is satisfied that the case involves such question. Scheme of section 100, CPC and section 82 of ESI act is altogether different and in the later case, the Court is not required to frame substantial questions as like the one under section 100, CPC. It is not necessary to formulate substantial question of law as no such duty is cast on the Court as like section 100, CPC. Language of section 100, CPC and section 82 of the ESI Act is different so far as this question is concerned. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to frame any substantial question of law at the time of admitting the appeal under the ESI Act. The Court is required to consider at the time of hearing the appeal whether any substantial question of law arises in the matter" 5.2 Mr. A.V. Nair, learned Counsel has suggested three substantial questions of law, which read as under:- "Question of Law: 1. Whether the ESI Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act, which is Sui-generis in nature, is empowered to award Interest on the received benefits, when the Hon'ble High Court or the Hon'ble ESI Court or the MAT have not awarded any Interest, while exercising it's Appellate jurisdiction under Section 54A and Section 82 of the ESI Act? 2. Whether the Interest could be awarded for the period of 11-13 years i.e. 1985-1996 and 1987-2000, when the insured-Claimants remained dormant in challenging the disability awarded by the Special Medical Board at the first instance? 3. Whether the ESI Court justified in granting the Interest at the rate of 12% from the date of order passed by the Special Medical Board?" 5.3 Mr. 3. Whether the ESI Court justified in granting the Interest at the rate of 12% from the date of order passed by the Special Medical Board?" 5.3 Mr. Nair, learned counsel has submitted that claimants have come before the Court after almost 10 years and because of their inaction to approach the authority in time, liability to pay the interest for such period may not be fasten upon the corporation. 5.4 Mr. Nair, learned counsel has also contended that the court has committed serious error while awarding the interest. He has also referred to and relied upon Section 54 of the Act, which reads as under:- "54. Determination of question of disablement. Any question — (a) whether the relevant accident has resulted in permanent disablement; (b) whether the extent of loss of earning capacity can be assessed provisionally or finally; (c) whether the assessment of the proportion of the loss of earning capacity is provisional or final; (d) in the case of provisional assessment, as to the period for which such assessment shall hold good,shall be determined by a medical board constituted in accordance with the provisions of the regulations and any such question shall hereafter be referred to as the "disablement questions." 5.5 In view of the above, he has submitted that the Court has no jurisdiction to award the interest. Mr. Nair, learned counsel has also referred to and relied upon Section 75 of the E.S.I. Act, which reads as under:- "75. Matters to be decided by Employees' Insurance Court. (1) If any question or dispute arises as to: (a) whether any person is an employee within the meaning of this Act or whether he is liable to pay the employee's contribution. (b) the rate of wages or average daily wages of an employee for the purposes of this Act. (c) the rate of contribution payable by a principal employer in respect of any employee. (d) the person who is or was the principal employer in respect of any employee. (e) the right of any person to any benefit and as to the amount and duration thereof. (ee) any direction issued by the Corporation under section 55A on a review of any payment of dependants' benefit. (d) the person who is or was the principal employer in respect of any employee. (e) the right of any person to any benefit and as to the amount and duration thereof. (ee) any direction issued by the Corporation under section 55A on a review of any payment of dependants' benefit. *** (g) any other matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation, or between a principal employer and an immediate employer or between a person and the Corporation or between an employee and a principal or immediate employer, in respect of any contribution or benefit or other dues payable or recoverable under this Act, or any other matter required to be or which may be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court under this Act, such question or dispute subject to the provisions of sub-section (2A) shall be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2A), the following claims shall be decided by the Employees' Insurance Court , namely: (a) claim for the recovery of contributions from the principal employer; (b) claim by a principal employer to recover contributions from any immediate employer. *** (d) claim against a principal employer under section 68; (e) claim under section 70 for the recovery of the value or amount of the benefits received by a person when he is not lawfully entitled thereto; (f) any claim for the recovery of any benefit admissible under this Act. (2A) If in any proceedings before the Employees' Insurance Court a disablement question arises and the decision of a medical board or a medical appeal tribunal has not been obtained on the same and the decision of such question is necessary for the determination of the claim or question before the Employees' Insurance Court, that Court shall direct the Corporation to have the question decided by this Act and shall thereafter proceed with the determination of the claim or question before it in accordance with the decision of the medical board or the medical appeal tribunal, as the case may be, except where an appeal has been filed before the Employees' Insurance Court under sub-section (2) of section 54A in which case the Employees' Insurance Court may itself determine all the issues arising before it. (2B) No matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation in respect of any contribution or any other dues shall be raised by the principal employer in the Employees' Insurance Court unless he has deposited with the Court fifty per cent. of the amount due from him as claimed by the Corporation:Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this sub-section. (3) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question or dispute as aforesaid or to adjudicate on any liability which by or under this Act is to be decided by a medical board, or by a medical appeal tribunal or by the Employees' Insurance Court." 5.6 In view of the above, he has submitted that the question whether the E.I. Court has jurisdiction to award the interest on the amount of compensation, itself is substantial question of law and therefore, present appeals deserves to be allowed. 6. As against that the preliminary objection raised Mr. Subramaniam Aiyer, learned counsel for the respondents that the appeals itself are not maintainable under the provisions of Section 82 sub-section (2) of the E.S.I Act, which reads as under:- "82. Appeal. (2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees insurance Court if it involved a substantial question of law." 7. Mr. Subramaniam Aiyer, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Court has not framed any substantial question of law at the time of admission and therefore, without any substantial question of law, all these appeals are required to be dismissed. 7.1 Mr. Subramaniam Aiyer, learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the liability has already been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in present case and therefore, the E.S.I. Corporation is liable to pay the interest as awarded by E.I. Court. 8. I have perused the material and documents available on record as well the record and proceedings. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the E.I. Court. 9. It appears that during pendency of present proceedings, almost all the claimants were died and now, their legal heirs are claiming this interest, on the amount of compensation. 10. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the E.I. Court. 9. It appears that during pendency of present proceedings, almost all the claimants were died and now, their legal heirs are claiming this interest, on the amount of compensation. 10. So far as liability is concerned, it was already settled by the E.I. Court in the earlier round of litigation and is confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, now, the only question which remains in present proceedings is, whether the respondents original claimants are entitled to get the interest from the date of the disability considered by the Medical Board or from the date on which the award was passed by E.I. Court? 11. Though, I am in agreement with the decision of this Court in case of E.S.I.C. vs. Vasantbhai (supra) however, at the same time, herein present case the entitlement of the interest from one date to another date which is suggested by the appellants is, as per my view, not a substantial question of law and therefore, I am of the opinion that the present appeals are only against awarding the interest from the date, which is mentioned by the E.I. Court. 12. Even in case of Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr. vs. Lalsing Sadiya Garasiya and Anr. 2018 4 GLR 3434 , the award passed by the E.I. Court with 8% interest was not interfered by this Court. In the said case, the claimant also suffered from the same disease named Silicosis. 13. In a number of case, the Hon'ble Court has described that what is the substantial question of law. Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided that unless and until framing of substantial question of law, interim relief cannot be granted. Herein present case, without framing the substantial question of law, the Court has granted interim relief. 14. Further, when the liability of the appellants is already crystallized and is confirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, the E.I. Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and awards, awarding the interest, as it is a civil consequence and the amount of compensation is always with the interest and therefore, learned Counsel Mr. Nair cannot take shelter of Section 54 of E.S.I. Act that, the Court has no jurisdiction to award any interest. 15. Nair cannot take shelter of Section 54 of E.S.I. Act that, the Court has no jurisdiction to award any interest. 15. It is also required to be noted herein that all the claimants herein were working in M/s. Alembic Glass company and they were suffering from the silicosis disease, which is incurable decease and it is a professional hazard. 16. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that present appeals are devoid of any merit and the same are required to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and awards passed by the E.I. Court, awarding interest from the date on which the medical board has decided the liability, require to be confirmed. 17. Accordingly, all these appeals are dismissed. Rule discharged in each of the appeal. 18. The amount deposited by the appellant - E.S.I. Corporation towards the rate of interest and the interest accrued on it, be disbursed to the original claimants or in case if the original claimants died their legal heirs are entitled to receive the said amount. 19. The E.I. Court is directed to disburse the amount in favour of the appellants/legal heirs of the deceased, after verifying their bank details and after following due procedure within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of present order. The impugned judgment and awards dated 20.5.2004 and 11.12.2003 passed in E.S.I. Application Nos. 5 of 2003, 6 of 2003, 20 of 2003, 19 of 2003, 8 of 2003, 9 of 2003, 10 of 2003, 11 of 2003, 13 of 2003, 12 of 2003, 14 of 2003, 15 of 2003 17 of 2003, 16 of 2003, 18 of 2003, 25 of 2003 and 52 of 2002 by Employee's Insurance Court, Vadoara are hereby confirmed. 20. Record and proceedings be sent back to the E.I. Court forthwith.