- (1.) THIS appeal under section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) is directed against order passed by the Judge Employees Insurance Court, west Bengal.
(2.) THE respondent, a permanent employee under M|s. Calcutta Glass and Silicate works (1936) Pvt. Ltd and a contributor to employees State Insurance fund while working on the grinding machine operated with electrical power met with an accident on 21. 3. 1968 at the time of sharpening scissors on the said machine, and particles sparkled therefrom struck his right eyeball causing an injury. On 22. 3. 68 he went to the Panel Doctor at his clinic and under his instructions went to Mayo Hospital and got himself examined by Dr. H. K. Indra who has since died. The respondent was admitted in the hospital on 26. 3. 68. He underwent an operation on 29. 3. 68 and was discharged on 10. 4. 68. Inspite of the operation he totally lost his vision in the right eye. After consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the parties and hearing arguments advanced on their behalf the learned Judge concluded that the respondent was entitled to permanent disablement benefit and passed an order in his favour awarding partial disablement benefit to the extent of 40% of the full rate for life. 75 (2a) of the Act it was the incumbent duty of the Insurance Court to have the question decided by a Medical Board. He argues that the Insurance Court acted illegally in ignoring the provisions of the said Section 75 (2a) and arriving at a decision on the question himself without having a report from the Medical Board Provisions of Section 75 (2a) of the Act are quoted below :-" (2a) If in any proceeding 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 Subsection (2) of section 54-A in which case the Employees' Insurance Court may itself determine all the issues arising before it. "
(3.) MR. Debesh Mukherjee, the learned advocate for the appellant Employees' state Insurance Corporation attempts to make out a substantial question of law as required under Section 82 (2) of the Act. He contends that the "disablement question" contemplated in Section 54 of the Act arose in this case and in view of the provisions of Section further argument advanced by Mr. Mukherjee is that the Court should have awarded 30% lops in earning capacity under item No. 32 of the second schedule of the Act in place of 40% under item 31 of the said Schedule.;