High Court of Gujarat
BHAVIKA HITENDRASINH JETHVAversusACT INFRA PORT LTD.
- Disposal
- 35-ANY OTHER MODE @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- C DOSHI
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the Workman Commissioner’s order is quashed and the case remanded for fresh assessment of disability and compensation.
Summary
The appellant, a work‑injured employee who lost three toes, appealed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act against the Workman Commissioner’s award of Rs 29,354 plus interest. The Commissioner had assessed disability solely on the Schedule of Injuries, disregarding a certificate of permanent disablement and certain medical bills. The appellant argued this was a mis‑assessment and sought a higher compensation, while the respondent contended that the Schedule injury rating was conclusive. The High Court, without deciding the merits, found that the Commissioner had erred by not considering the medical evidence and ordered the matter remanded for fresh assessment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Commissioner’s order was quashed, and the case was sent back with a six‑month deadline for a new determination.
Issues considered
- Whether the Workman Commissioner correctly applied the Schedule of Injuries in assessing disability for the amputation of three toes.
- Whether the certificate of permanent disablement and the medical bills should have been considered in determining compensation.
- Whether the Commissioner erred in striking out medical evidence without recording reasons.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Employees' Compensation Actdisability assessmentSchedule of Injuriesworkmen's compensationappealremandmedical evidence
Judgment
C/FA/826/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 826 of 2025
==========================================================
BHAVIKA HITENDRASINH JETHVA & ORS.
Versus
ACT INFRA PORT LTD. & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellants
CHETAN D KARIYA(8819) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 20/07/2026
ORDER
1. This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees'
Compensation Act ( in short "the Act") seeking enhancement
of the compensation granted by the learned Workman
Commissioner, Bhuj, District Kutch, to the Appellant/original
claimant, whereby the learned Workman Commissioner by
impugned order dated 31.12.2024 partly allowed WC (NF)
No.30 of 2010 and granted meager amount of compensation
of Rs.29,354/- together with interest at the rate of 12%,
though the Appellant//original claimant sustained an injury
involving the amputation of three toes.
2. The appeal has been filed by the original claimant. The
facts of the matter, as recapitulated by the learned Workman
Commissioner, are not in dispute between the parties.
Page 1 of 4
C/FA/826/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2026
3. The learned Workman Commissioner assessed the
disability arising from the said injury with reference to the
Schedule of Injuries and awarded compensation of Rs.29,354/-
together with interest at the rate of 12%.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the
appellants and learned advocate Mr. Yogi Gadhiya for the
respondent No.2. When the matter is called out, learned
advocate Mr. Chetan Baria for the respondent No.1 is absent.
5. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate for the Appellants,
submitted that the learned Workman Commissioner failed to
correctly assess the disability suffered by the claimant. It was
submitted that three toes of the claimant were amputated,
constituting a Schedule Injury, and that the Workman
Commissioner was required to assess the disability on the
basis of the Schedule Injury. It was further submitted that the
learned Workman Commissioner ignored Exh.66 being the
certificate of permanent disablement issued by Dr. Suresh
Rudani and instead relied only upon the disability stated for
the Schedule Injury. It was further submitted that the learned
Workman Commissioner failed and/or refused to consider
certain medical bills recording expenses incurred by the
claimant, without recording any reasons for doing so, and that
there is accordingly an error on the part of the learned
Workman Commissioner in awarding a meager amount of
compensation.
5.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Modi
Page 2 of 4
C/FA/826/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2026
prays to allow this First Appeal and that the matter be
remanded for reconsideration of the medical bills/expenses.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Gadhiya, learned advocate
appearing for the respondent No.2, submitted that the injury
sustained by the claimant is a Schedule Injury, and that any
medical opinion suggesting disability beyond what is stated in
the Schedule is not acceptable. It was submitted that the
learned Workman Commissioner rightly referred to the
Schedule and reassessed the disability accordingly, and that
no error has been committed by the learned Workman
Commissioner.
6.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Gadhia
prays to dismiss the First Appeal.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case, and more particularly the medical papers on record, the
Court found without delving into or deciding the merits of the
case that this is a fit case to remand the matter to the learned
Workman Commissioner for reassessment of the entire issue.
8. The Court noted that it is admitted that the claimant
received an injury involving amputation of three toes, that
medical evidence is on record and is required to be
interpreted, and that the learned Workman Commissioner,
without recording any reasons, struck out certain medical
bills from consideration. On this basis, the Court found force
Page 3 of 4
C/FA/826/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/07/2026
in the submission of learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi that the
matter deserves reconsideration.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the First Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the learned
Workman Commissioner, Bhuj in WC (NF) No.30 of 2010 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
10. WC (NF) No.30 of 2010 is restored/remanded to the
Court of the Workman Commissioner, Bhuj, with a direction to
conclude the same within an outer limit of six months from
receipt of this order, without being influenced by its earlier
order.
11. Liberty is granted to either party desiring to lead
evidence to do so before the learned Workman Commissioner.
12. Needless to state that this Court has not touched
anything on the merits of the case and therefore, the learned
Workman Commissioner shall decide the matter on its own
merits and in accordance with law after considering all the
evidence led by the parties.
13. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
the concerned Court forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 20/07/2026 14:27:05
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Employees' Compensation Act"Sign in to search