JUDGMENT 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mohammed, J.- This appeal is directed against the Judgment in I.C. Appeal No. 19 of 1988 of the Employees' Insurance Court, Alleppey. The Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation, Trichur is the appellant herein and the appellant before the court below is the respondent. The respondent herein, while working under a contractor met with an accident on 6th May 1987 in the premises of FACT Limited. He was treated initially at a private hospital and later he was shifted to E.S.I. Hospital, Udyogamandal. Temporary disablement benefit was given for the period from 8th May 1987 to 14th July 1987. Later the case was referred to the E.S.I. Medical Board for assessing the disablement and accordingly they assessed the loss of earning capacity as 5 per cent. As against this finding, the respondent filed an appeal before the Employees' Insurance Court. The E.I. Court finally decided the case holding that the E.S.I, Corporation shall extend full rate of benefits to the respondent on all days on which he is not at all employed by any of his immediate employers or principal employer. The court further observed that in case the respondent is usefully employed by any person and if he is found earning, the Corporation's liability will be diminished depending upon the earning by the respondent on such days. The Corporation is aggrieved by the above findings of the court below. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 3. The question considered by the court below is whether the respondent would be entitled to full rate of benefit or partial benefit of 5 per cent as awarded by the E.S.I. Medical Board. The court below in the course of the Judgment observed as below: "Since the E.S.I. Corporation is having enough power under S.19 of the E.S.I. Act to rehabilitate suitably a disabled employee, definitely there will be every chance for reducing their liability in the matter of payment of full rate of benefit to the insured employee all the time. This court can only say that it is the look out of the E.S.I. Corporation how and in what manner a positive solution can be found out in cases like this." The counsel for the appellant seriously attacked the above observation and consequent finding entered by the court below. 4. This court can only say that it is the look out of the E.S.I. Corporation how and in what manner a positive solution can be found out in cases like this." The counsel for the appellant seriously attacked the above observation and consequent finding entered by the court below. 4. Obviously, the respondent filed the appeal before the E.I. Court under S.54A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). S.54 of the Act provides that any 'disablement question' arises for determination, it shall be determined by a Medical Board constituted in accordance with the provisions of the regulations. From the provisions contained in S.54 and 54A it is axiomatic that the Medical Board is the original forum provided under the Act to decide the question whether the employment injury suffered by the injured person has resulted in permanent disablement of such person and if so what is the extent of loss of his earning capacity. In case the aggrieved party prefers appeal before the medical appeal tribunal constituted in that behalf, than the tribunal has to decide the question by following the procedure in the schedule annexed to the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950. When it comes to the appeal or further appeal before the E.S.I. Court, that court, has to determine the questions as an appellate authority as provided for under the latter part of sub-S.(2A) of S.75 of the Act. 5. Sub-S.(2A) of S.75 is thus: "(2A) If in any proceeding before the Employees' Insurance Court a disablement question arises and the decision of a Medical Board or a medical appeal tribunal has not been obtained on the same and the decision of such question is necessary for the determination of the claim or question before the Employees' Insurance Court, that Court shall direct the Corporation to have the question decided by this Act and shall thereafter proceed with the determination of the claim or question before it in accordance with the decision of the Medical Board or the medical appeal tribunal, as the case may be, except where an appeal has been filed before the Employees' Insurance Court under sub-S.(2) of S.54A in which case the Employees' Insurance Court may itself determine all the issues arising before it." This provision contemplates two situations where the disablement question comes up for decision before the E.I. Court. The first situation is where the 'disablement question' arises in any proceeding before the court and the decision of a Medical Board or medical appeal tribunal has not been obtained on the same and the decision of such question is necessary for determination of the claim or question before the Employees' Insurance Court. The second situation is where the 'disablement question' arise before the E.I. Court by way of an appeal filed before it under sub-section (2) of S.54A. In such case the E.I. Court may itself determine all the issues arising before it. 6. As pointed out earlier, the question in the present case came up before the E.I. Court as an appeal filed by the respondent under S.54A(2)(ii) of the Act. The Medical Board assessed the degree of disability after examining the respondent on 18th March 1988 and Ext. P-2 is the decision of the Medical Board. From Ext. P-2 it is revealed that the percentage of disability in the case of the respondent is 5 per cent. It was against the said decision the respondent filed the appeal. The main contention urged in the appeal was that the Medical Board should have found that the claimant was totally disabled. When the employment injury suffered by the insured person falls outside the injuries specified in the second schedule, just as in the present case, has to be necessarily assessed by the E.I. court having regard to the reduction in his capacity for all work which he was capable of performing but for the employment injury sustained by him. The physical disability suffered by such person on account of employment injury may or may not have the effect of reducing his capacity for all work. The nature of the injuries suffered by a person may have little effect or no effect at all on such persons earning capacity. Whatever that be, the loss of physical capacity of a person arising from the employment injury suffered by him cannot be equated to the loss of his earning capacity. In other words, the loss of earning capacity and the loss of physical capacity is not one and the same. They arc distinct and separate. It is the function of the E.I. Court to decide this question in the appeal filed before it under S.54A(2)(ii). 7. We have sufficiently noticed the scope and ambit of S.54A(2)(ii). In other words, the loss of earning capacity and the loss of physical capacity is not one and the same. They arc distinct and separate. It is the function of the E.I. Court to decide this question in the appeal filed before it under S.54A(2)(ii). 7. We have sufficiently noticed the scope and ambit of S.54A(2)(ii). Then the question is while exercising the power under the said section can the E.I. Court direct the appellant to rehabilitate a disabled employee by providing an alternate employment elsewhere. No doubt, such a direction is beyond the powers of the E.I. Court. S.19 of the Act is thus: "19. Corporation's power to promote measures for health, etc. of insured persons. The Corporation may, in addition to the scheme of benefits specified in this Act, promote measures for the improvement of the health and welfare of insured persons and for the rehabilitation and re-employment of insured persons who have been disabled or injured and may incur in respect of such measures expenditure from the funds of the Corporation within such limits as may be prescribed by the Central Government." What is provided under the above provision is that the Corporation has additional power to promote measures for the improvement of the health and welfare of insured persons and for the rehabilitation and re-employment of insured persons who have been disabled or injured. That does not mean the E.I. Court can direct the Corporation to rehabilitate an insured disabled employee while disposing an appeal filed before it under S.54A(2)(ii) of the Act. By the provisions contained in S.19 what the legislature in ended is to confer additional power on the Corporation to promote welfare measures for the benefit of insured disabled person. However, while deciding the dispute between the E.S.I. Corporation and an insured disabled person, the Court shall settle the dispute in a manner as contemplated under S.54A(2) and S.75(2A). Therefore we declare the directions and observations of the court below in this regard contained in the Judgment under appeal are totally beyond the scope of its powers. 8. In view of what is said above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned Judgment and remand the case for deciding afresh in accordance with law and also in view of the observations made above. We do so. 8. In view of what is said above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned Judgment and remand the case for deciding afresh in accordance with law and also in view of the observations made above. We do so. Both parties are given freedom to produce evidence in respect of their respective contentions before the court below. Since the present case relates to the year 1988 we direct the court below to dispose of the case finally as above said expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. We direct both parties to appear before the court below on 1st December 1997. The appeal is disposed of as above.