JUDGMENT : J.B. Koshy, J.—The respondent was an insure employee of Modern Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. which is a Government establishment. Because of the occupational discase he was unable to do his work and his services were terminated by the Company. The Medical Board of the E.S.I. Corporation fixed 50% disability due to Byssinosis which is an occupational disease. Claiming that he is entitled to 100% disablement benefit, he filed an appeal before the Employees' Insurance Court, Palakkad. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondent lost employment due to Byssinosis which is an occupational disease caused due to cotton dust. With this sort of disability it is not disputed that he cannot do the work in the factory even if disability is 50%. 2. It was the case of the respondent that considering the job opportunities, his training and his background, he will not get any other work, the Employees' Insurance Court found that with the disability of the petitioner he cannot do the work in the factory. He cannot do that work even at a reduced level. Even the E.S.I. Corporation had no case that he can do the same work in the factory at a reduced level or any other work in the factory with exposure to same environment. Work in the same atmosphere will only add to the risk. Employees' Insurance Court considered the evidence as follows: "According to Ext. B3 decision of the Medical Board, the loss of earning capacity is 50% provided the occupation is changed. The respondent corporation by Ext. A2 letter dated October 4, 1990 requested the employer to change the site of work of the appellant to any other Section other than the opening and processing of Cotton bales or the Carding Section so that the insured person is not exposed to Cotton dust. The employer by his Ext. A1 letter dated October 15, 1990 replied that the establishment being an old cotton mill, cotton dust is found in all the areas in and around the premises and hence a section cannot be found out to accommodate the appellant in a site where he is not exposed to cotton dust. It has come out in evidence that the appellant had also requested the employer to change his occupation. By Ext. It has come out in evidence that the appellant had also requested the employer to change his occupation. By Ext. A3 letter dated August 6, 1990, the employer informed him that since the appellant had been working as a Carding Tender for quite long period and did not have any experience in any other department, it was not practically possible to engage him in any other department. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant was compelled to resign from his job." Following the dictum laid down by this Court in E.S.I Corporation v. Gopi, 1995 (1) KLT 482 the E.I. Court awarded 100% compensation. However, it further restricted that the claim benefit need be given only until he is gainfully employed elsewhere. Against the above, this appeal is filed by the E.S.I. Corporation. 3. Contention of the E.S.I. Corporation is that E.I. Court cannot sit over the decision of the Medical Board. The above contention cannot be accepted at all because statutorily an appeal is provided under the Act to the Employees' Insurance Court against the decision of the Medical Board (See Section 54-A(2)(ii) of the Employees' State Insurance Act and Rule 20-B of the Employees' State Insurance (Central) Rules). Further, the E.I. Court is concerned only with the benefit to be awarded for permanent disability on the basis of the E.S.I. Act after considering the medical opinion. Employees' State Insurance Act is a social security legislation and it has to be interpreted beneficially. Unlike the Workmen's Compensation Act it is also an employment insurance wherein both the employer and employees contribute. When the accident occurred in the course of employment and as a result the workman sustains injury or he contacts occupational disease which results in loss of employment, he is entitled to disability compensation from the insurance fund. If he can do the same work in a reduced manner, compensation need only be given depending upon the reduction of ability as can be seen from Section 2(15-A) of the E. S. I. Act. But in this case he cannot do the work even in a reduced manner which clearly comes within the definition u/s 2(15-B) of the Act with the permanent total disability. However, if the Corporation gives the rehabilitation benefits u/s 19 and thereafter he gets gainful employment, only disability compensation need be given till he attains employment elsewhere. Otherwise he is entitled to 100% compensation. 4. However, if the Corporation gives the rehabilitation benefits u/s 19 and thereafter he gets gainful employment, only disability compensation need be given till he attains employment elsewhere. Otherwise he is entitled to 100% compensation. 4. In this connection we refer to the judgment of this court in E.S.I. Corporation Vs. Raju, (1995) 1 LLJ 21 where the Court deals with the same situation. Learned counsel for the E.S.I. Corporation also referred to a decision of this Court in E.S.I.C. Vs. K.K. Pushkaran, (1994) 1 LLJ 227 . There it was held that unless there is a finding that the injury suffered by the employee caused him total disablement of permanent nature whereby he is unable to do any work 100% disability benefit cannot be granted. Physical power is an important factor. In that case the case was only remanded for the lack of specific findings. Here the worker is permanently disabled to do the work. He is totally disabled and he lost his employment. This Court again considered the matter in detail in E.S.I. Corporation Vs. Raju, as well as in 1995(1) KLT 482 (supra). 5. Since the E.I. Court only followed the judgment of this Court, we are of the opinion that there is no substantial question of law arising in this case and there is no legal error in the judgment. The appeal is dismissed.