Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.6.70 passed by the learned Judge, Employees Insurance Court, West Bengal in Case No. 107 of 1968. 2. The respondent Hari Hazra an insured labourer filed an application before the learned Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, praying for assessment for the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 30%, arising out of employment injury to his left eye. The respondent works as a machine man of M/s. Angur Jute Mills, District Hooghly. On 15.2.66 he sustained an employment injury in his left eye as a result of which the vision has been badly affected. His case was referred to the Medical Board which after considering the report of the Eye Specialist temporarily assessed the loss of earning capacity at 25%. The Medical Board finally assessed the Joss of earning capacity at 1%. The respondent challenged the assessment of the Medical Board as entirely erroneous. The appellant contested the suit contending inter alia that the final assessment of the Medical Board was binding on the applicant. 3. Relying on the decision in Raghuraj Singh v. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, New Delhi reported in 1968 Labour and Industrial cases, page 48, the learned Judge has held that partial loss of vision or lessening of vision falls under Entry No. 26 of Part-II of the Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act. He, therefore, allowed permanent partial disablement benefit to the extent of 30% of the full rate of Rs.1.75 per diem till his life in accordance with the E.S.I. Act and Regulations. Being aggrieved by the said order, the E.S.I. Corporation has preferred the present appeal. 4. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that under the provisions of s.75(2A) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the decision of the Medical Board is binding between the parties and the tribunal is bound to make an award in, accordance with the said decision except in an appeal against the said decision. The decision of the Medical Board is that the respondent sustained permanent partial disablement resulting in loss of earning capacity to the extent of 1% only. The Tribunal could not, therefore, award any compensation in excess of 1%. The decision of the Medical Board is that the respondent sustained permanent partial disablement resulting in loss of earning capacity to the extent of 1% only. The Tribunal could not, therefore, award any compensation in excess of 1%. Section 75(2A) lays down that if in any proceeding before the Employees' Insurance Court, the disablement question arises and the decision of the Medical Board had been obtained then the Tribunal is enjoined to proceed with the determination of the claim or the question in accordance with the decision of the Medical Board subject to one exception, namely, where the Tribunal hears an appeal against the decision of the Board under s. 54A(2) of the Act, the Tribunal can make is own assessment and find out how far the decision of the Medical Board is correct. It has been held by a Division Bench of this court in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Hafiz Khan reported in 80 CWN page 672 that under s.75(2A) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the decision of the Medical Board is conclusive and binding between the parties and the Insurance Court is bound to make an award in accordance with the decision of the Medical Board, except where there is an appeal against the decision of the Medical Board under s. 54A(2) of the said Act. No appeal having been filed against the decision of the Medical Board within 3 months as provided by Rule-20B framed under the said Act, the application before the Insurance Court cannot be treated as an appeal against the decision of the Medical Board. Relying on this decision Mr. Mukherjee has urged that the Tribunal Jute no jurisdiction to assess loss of earning capacity at 30%. 5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the respondent, has, on the other hand, contended that the loss of partial vision of one eye sustained by the respondent as a result of the injury, comes within the purview of Item No. 26 of Part-II of Schedule-I of the Workmen's Compensation Act which assesses loss of earning capacity at 30%. In support of his contention he has referred to the Full Bench decision of this court in Lipton (India) Limited v. Gokul Chandra Mondal reported in 1981 Labour and Industrial Cases (Part II) page-1300. In support of his contention he has referred to the Full Bench decision of this court in Lipton (India) Limited v. Gokul Chandra Mondal reported in 1981 Labour and Industrial Cases (Part II) page-1300. It has been held in that case that an eye is certainly an organ of a human body and, as such within the meaning of the word 'member' as contained in the note to the Schedule of the Act. It has been held that partial loss of vision on one eye comes within the purview of Item No. 26 of Part-II of Schedule-I. Item No. 26 only refers to loss of vision of one eye. Loss of vision may be either total or partial. There is nothing in Item No. 26 which excludes partial loss of vision. If it was intended that Item No. 26 would apply only to complete to total loss of vision, it would have made an express provision in that regard. It may be mentioned here that the Second Schedule of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 was inserted by Act No. 44 of 1966 with effect from 28.1.68. So at the time of the accident in 1966, the Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act was applicable. That apart, Item No. 32 of Part-II of the Second Schedule of the Employees State Insurance Act is the same as Item No. 26 of Part II of Schedule-I of the Workmen's Compensation Act. So, the Full Bench decision referred to above is applicable in this case. There is no dispute that the respondent sustained partial loss of vision in one eye as a result of the injuries sustained in an accident. The Medical Board has finally assessed the loss of earning capacity at 1%. This is inconsistent with the statutory assessment of 30% in Item No. 26 of Part-II of Schedule-I of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The question arises whether the decision of the Medical Board in such a case would be conclusive and binding on the parties under s. 75(2A). To hold that, eyen in a scheduled injury, the decision of the Medical Board would be final and the Tribunal must pass an award in accordance with it even if it is at variance with the schedule would obviously lead to an anomaly. The opinion of the Medical Board in case of a scheduled injury cannot override the statutory provisions of the schedule. The opinion of the Medical Board in case of a scheduled injury cannot override the statutory provisions of the schedule. The harmonious construction of s. 75(2A) clearly suggests that s. 75(2A) is applicable in cases of unscheduled injuries i.e. the injuries which are not covered by any part of the Schedule. It is only in such a case the extent of loss of earning capacity is to be decided on evidence and the opinion of the Mec1ical Board in this regard would be final and binding between the parties and the Tribunal must pass an award in conformity with the decision of the Medical Board but in case of scheduled injuries covered by the schedule, the extent of loss of earning capacity need not be investigated inasmuch as the relevant item in the schedule would finally determine the question. If assessment of the Medical Board in case of a scheduled injury like the present one is not in conformity with that provided in the relevant item in the Schedule that cannot by any stretch of imagination override the statutory provisions contained in the Schedule In such a case the provisions of the relevant entry in the Schedule would prevail. This question was not raised and decided in Hafiz Khan's case (supra) because in that case the injury sustained by the respondent was not a scheduled injury but in the instant case, as we have seen before the injury sustained by the respondent squarely falls within the purview of Item No. 26 of Part-II of Schedule-I of the Workmen's Compensation Act corresponding to Item No. 32 of Part-II of Schedule-II of the Employees State Insurance Act. The present case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. According to Item No. 26, the petitioner has sustained 30% loss of earning capacity. The learned Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in awarding compensation on that basis. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is affirmed. Orders of stay, if any are vacated. Appeal dismissed.