Key Points:
Bombay High Court allowed a worker’s compensation claim after a 16-year legal battle.
The court ruled that disability certificates from non-treating doctors cannot be rejected outright.
The earlier rejection of the claim by the compensation commissioner in 2012 was set aside.
The case has been sent back for fresh evaluation of the worker’s loss of earning capacity.
In a significant ruling reinforcing workers’ rights, the Bombay High Court has allowed a compensation claim filed by a construction worker who had been denied relief for more than 16 years following a workplace accident. The court held that a disability certificate issued by a doctor who did not treat the patient cannot be rejected solely on that ground.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne delivered the judgment on February 25, 2026, setting aside an earlier decision that had dismissed the worker’s claim. The court clarified that under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, a disability certificate issued by any qualified medical practitioner can be considered valid evidence.
The case involved Mahendra Sabharu Majhi, a 27-year-old worker from Budel in Odisha, who was employed at a construction site in Thane, Maharashtra. His employer operated from Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai.
Majhi suffered serious injuries in a workplace accident that affected his ability to work and earn a livelihood. After the incident, he approached the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, seeking compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act.
He claimed approximately ₹5.95 lakh in compensation from his employer and the insurer, arguing that the injuries had caused lasting disability and reduced his earning capacity.
Despite the claim, the compensation commissioner rejected Majhi’s application in June 2012.
The rejection was based on the finding that the disability certificate submitted by Majhi had been issued by a doctor who had not treated him at the time of the accident. The commissioner concluded that the doctor could not be relied upon to assess the worker’s disability and therefore refused to accept the certificate as valid medical evidence.
Without the disability assessment, the authority dismissed Majhi’s compensation claim.
The Bombay High Court disagreed with the commissioner’s reasoning and ruled that the claim had been rejected on an incorrect interpretation of the law.
Justice Marne observed that the Employees’ Compensation Act does not require that the doctor issuing a disability certificate must be the treating physician. The law only requires the assessment to come from a qualified medical practitioner.
The court noted that a medical expert can evaluate a patient’s condition by examining them and reviewing their medical records, even if they were not involved in the original treatment. Rejecting such evidence solely on procedural grounds would undermine the purpose of the law.
After reviewing the case, the High Court set aside the commissioner’s 2012 order that had dismissed Majhi’s claim.
The court directed the commissioner to reconsider the worker’s compensation application, this time taking the disability certificate and medical evidence into account. The authority must now determine the extent of Majhi’s loss of earning capacity and calculate the compensation payable accordingly.
(Rh/ARC)