PARMAR HITESHBHAI MOTIBHAI vs Regional Director Employment State Insurance Corporation Advocate - A.J.RAWAL — 2/2026

Case under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 Section 26. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 01st May 2026.

MISCAPP ESI - MISC APPLICATION E.S.I.

CNR: GJAH170000432026

Case disposed

Filing Number

2/2026

Filing Date

19-01-2026

Registration No

2/2026

Registration Date

19-01-2026

Court

INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD

Judge

1-PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL COURT

Decision Date

01st May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Acts & Sections

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 Section 26

Petitioner(s)

PARMAR HITESHBHAI MOTIBHAI

Adv. R.R.JOGI

Respondent(s)

Regional Director Employment State Insurance Corporation Advocate - A.J.RAWAL

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL COURT

01-05-2026

Disposed

24-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

24-04-2026

JUDGEMENT

24-03-2026

REPLY

13-03-2026

REPLY

Final Orders / Judgements

01-05-2026
ORDER

Case Summary: Parmar Hiteshbhai Motibhai v. Regional Director ESI Corporation (2/2026) The court granted the petitioner's application to condone a 55-day delay in filing a second appeal against a medical board's disability assessment. The petitioner, injured during employment in March 2024, had sought 20% permanent disability but was awarded only 2%. The court found the case meritorious on substantive grounds and applied the "balance of convenience" doctrine, noting that condonation would serve justice without prejudicing the ESI Corporation, while denying it would unjustly deprive the petitioner of appellate rights on technical grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Parmar Hiteshbhai Motibhai v. Regional Director ESI Corporation (2/2026) The court granted the petitioner's application to condone a 55-day delay in filing a second appeal against a medical board's disability assessment. The petitioner, injured during employment in March 2024, had sought 20% permanent disability but was awarded only 2%. The court found the case meritorious on substantive grounds and applied the "balance of convenience" doctrine, noting that condonation would serve justice without prejudicing the ESI Corporation, while denying it would unjustly deprive the petitioner of appellate rights on technical grounds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

INDUSTRIAL COURT, AHMEDABAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case