JUDGMENT S. K. Dubey, J. 1. Aggrieved of the order dated April 23, 1987, passed in Case No. WC/44/84/NP by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jabalpur, the employer has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (for short 'the Act'). 2. The workman was employed in Eklehra Colliery and because of the nature of duty he suffered occupational disease, namely, pneumoconiosis but the employer did not pay any compensation on account of disability suffered. Therefore, the workman filed an application under Section 3 of the Act. The defence of the employer is that the workman did not suffer with the disease. The Commissioner, therefore, got the workman examined by the Medical Board who assessed the disability and loss of earning capacity at the rate of 50 per cent, hence declared the workman unfit to perform his duties. On this the Commissioner held that it was a case of 100 per cent loss of physical capacity because the workman was incapacitated to do his work as disease affected breathing which made him difficult to put on any hard labour and thus ordered the payment of: compensation of Rs. 62,350/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Medical Board assessed 50 per cent loss of earning capacity, therefore, the compensation should not have been awarded more than 50 per cent as the workman at the time of filing of the application was in service whose employment was not discontinued. 4. In a case Where because of the disablement if the workman becomes unfit for the job which he was performing in the absence of any proof of loss of earning capacity the workman is entitled to compensation specified in the Schedule, but, on that basis a workman is not debarred from proving that he had suffered higher percentage of loss of earning capacity. While considering such a case the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has to consider whether the workman is under employment or got some other alternative employment, if that is a position that has to be considered while awarding the compensation. However, in the present case, finding recorded by the Commissioner is that because of the occupational disease suffered by the workman, the workman was totally incapacitated to perform his work. This finding arrived at is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in appeal under Section 30 of the Act. However, in the present case, finding recorded by the Commissioner is that because of the occupational disease suffered by the workman, the workman was totally incapacitated to perform his work. This finding arrived at is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in appeal under Section 30 of the Act. Besides, in a case of other similarly situated workman against the appellant/emoyer in the order impugned the Commissioner assessed the disability at 100 per cent. Award of compensation to one of the workmen was challenged by the employer. Gulab C. Gupta, J. (as he then was) vide order dated April 30,1988, dismissed the appeal holding that a workman suffering from pneumoconiosis would be capable of being employed in other employment in the coal industry or in some other industry is not possible to believe. It is well-known that the disease affects breathing and makes it difficult to put on any hard labour. Therefore, award of compensation on assessment of 100 per cent loss of his working capacity cannot be said to be illeal. The case of the present workman is not distinguishable, hence, we are of the view that finding of loss of 100 per cent physical capacity and that the workman was not capable to perform his duties is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in appeal as no substantial question of law is involved. 5. Accordingly, this appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.