JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J. - This is an appeal u/s 82 (1) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 against an appellate order fixing disability of the appellant at 60% and allowing his compensation for the same. 2. Appellant was Machinist in the Indian Telephone Industries, Naini, Allahabad. On 29thJune, 1981 he was victim of accident and sustained employment injury. Medical Board alter considering the X-ray report and clinically examining the appellant found that there was reduction of inter vertibral disc space between T 11 and T 12 with anterior wedging of T 12 vertibra and fixed the disability of the appellant at 40%. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred appeal to the Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur. Before the Court there was medical evidence of reduction of inter vertibral disc space between T 11 and T 12 with anterior wedging of T 12 vertibra and slight bending in the spinal chord in thoraxic lumber region. There was also medical note that appellant was unable to stand up. He could walk with the support of stick. Learned Employees Insurance Court observed in judgment" due to this spacing the appellant has to walk haltingly and there is permanent ankylosis of the back bone from its lower end near waist. Then the learned said Insurance Court said in the judgment "the bare outlook of the condition of the insured person reveals that he is bending from its waist parallel to the earth". The learned Court, however, seeing the condition of the appellant was of the opinion that near about 2/3rd of his earning capacity had been lost and not the total. Appellant could move haltingly and was not totally disabled. But the learned Insurance Court allowed 60 % compensation. 3. Being aggrieved, the employee has come up in this appeal. 4. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant suffered 100 % permanent disability and should have been allowed 100 % compensation. At any rate he should have been allowed 67 % compensation. 5. On behalf of the respondent it has been contended that the appellant had old thoraxic injury and so even the. Insurance Court allowed excessive disablement compensation. The learned Counsel for the respondent referred to the note of old thoraxic injury in the medical papers of July and November, 1982. 5. On behalf of the respondent it has been contended that the appellant had old thoraxic injury and so even the. Insurance Court allowed excessive disablement compensation. The learned Counsel for the respondent referred to the note of old thoraxic injury in the medical papers of July and November, 1982. It should not be forgotten that the accident took place on 29th June, 1981 and after that in July and November, 1982 the injury suffered in the accident could have been described only as old injury. From that no inference can be drawn that even before the incident of 29th June, 1981 appellant had thoraxic injury. 6. For appreciating the argument of appellant's counsel definition of 'permanent total disablement' given in Section 2(15-B) of the Act may be noted as under: Permanent total disablement" means such disablement of a permanent nature as incapacitates an employee for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablements: Provided that permanent total disablement shall be deemed to result from every injury specified in part I of the Second Schedule or from any combination of injuries specified in part II there of where the aggregate percentage of the loss of the earning capacity, as specified in the said part II against those injuries, amounts to one hundred percent, or more. 7. For interpreting "work which he was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablements" occurring in Sub-section (15-B) reference can be made to the definition of "permanent partial disablement" given in Section 2(15-A) of the Act which runs as under: permanent partial disablement" means such disablement of a permanent nature, as reduces the earning capacity of an employee in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of the accident resulting in the disablement; Provided that every injury specified in part II of the Second Schedule shall be deemed to result in permanent partial disablement. 8. It is evident that the "work" which he was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablement relates to the work which the employee was doing in connection with his employment. 8. It is evident that the "work" which he was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablement relates to the work which the employee was doing in connection with his employment. It is then evident that according to the definition of permanent total disablement given in Sub-section (15-B) there must be total incapacity to do the work which the employee was doing at the time of employment when he suffered accident. It was vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that from the observations of the Employees Insurance Court it is obvious that the appellant cannot stand erect. His waist is bending and is paralled to the earth. He cannot, therefore, work as machinist. I am unable to agree with this contention. The learned Employees Insurance Court was more impressed by his observation of the appellant in the court. Medical papers on record did not show that the bending of the waist was so much that it could have been parallel to the earth. An inference drawn merely on 'observation' of individual in the court overlooking the clinical reports can very often lead to misleading results. In India interested parties can begin disability or extreme helplessness in the court. Hence, the observation of the Insurance Employee court "the bare outlook of the condition of the injured person reveals that he is bending from its waist partly to the earth" cannot have any significant value. It need not be said that learned employees Insurance Court Judge did not take any precaution against beingning. At least he did not note the precautions taken against beingning in his Judgment. The conclusion of the Judge that the appellant suffered 2/3rd disability is not based on judicially approved material. Then the lower court record contains nothing to show that the appellant was rendered totally incapable of doing the work of a machinist. Since no cross objection has been filed on the material on record I see no reason to interfere in this appeal. 9. Then it should not be forgotten that question of fact. In this connection reference can be made to the case of Calcutta Licensed Measurers Bengal Chamber of Commerce Vs. Md. Hossain, (1969) ACJ 92 . In appeals u/s 82 of the Act the High Court can interfere only on point of law. 10. In result this appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs.