Judgment :- Koshy, J. Appellant was employed in Malappuram Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., The establishment was covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appellant was covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Scheme and contributions were regularly paid on behalf of him. The appellant has got a serious disease, caused by breathing cotton particles in the establishment, called ‘Byssinosis’ which is declared as an occupational disease as can be seen from Part C of the Third Schedule, read with section 52A of the Act. Item No.3 in Part C of the Third Schedule is as follows: “3. Bronchopulmonary diseases All work involving exposure caused by cotton, flax to the risk concerned. Hemp and sisal dust (Byssinosis)” The fact that the appellant was a covered employee under the E.S.I. Act and he got an occupational disease of Byssinosis due to the work in the factory are not disputed. He was under continuous treatment for the disease and was getting E.S.I. benefit. Because of the ailment, his services were terminated as he was unable to do the work in the factory because of the above disease. Exposure to cotton dust will aggravate his disease and he cannot breath such contaminated air with cotton particles any more and his life will be in danger. His matter was referred to Medical Board. Medical Board of the E.S.I. Corporation certified that he was afflicted with the disease of ‘Byssinosis’ and there is 50% loss of earning capacity because of the above disease. Therefore, the Medical Board accepted that the appellant had to work in the atmosphere polluted with cotton dust and as a result of the continuous inhaling of cotton dust, he developed respiratory disease which was subsequently diagnosed as Byssinosis. According to the appellant, since his services were terminated because of the ill-health and he cannot work in the cotton factory, he is entitled to get 100% disablement benefit and he approached the Medical Appeal Tribunal. The Medical Appeal Tribunal held that no interference is required because actually his termination of service was illegal in view of the provisions of Regulation 98(iii) of the E.S.I. (Gen.) Regulations, 1950 and he was not incapacitated for doing any work at all. He can do some work in a place where there is no cotton particles. This was challenged invoking the provisions of section 54A of the Act. 2. He can do some work in a place where there is no cotton particles. This was challenged invoking the provisions of section 54A of the Act. 2. Section 54A of the Act reads as follows: “54A. References to medical boards and appeals to medical appeal tribunals and Employees’ Insurance Courts.- (1) The case of any insured person for permanent disablement benefit shall be referred by the Corporation to a medical board for determination of the disablement question and if, on that or any subsequent reference, the extent of loss of earning capacity of the insured person is provisionally assessed, it shall again be so referred to the medical board not later than the end of the period taken into account by the provisional assessment. (2) If the insured person or the corporation is not satisfied with the decision of the medical board, the insured person or the Corporation may appeal in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time to- (i) the medical appeal tribunal constituted in accordance with the provisions of the regulations with a further right of appeal in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time to the Employees’ Insurance Court, or (ii) the Employees’ Insurance Court directly: Provided that no appeal by an insured person shall lie under this sub-section if such person has applied for commutation of disablement benefit on the basis of the decision of the medical board and received the commuted value of such benefit: Provided further that no appeal by the Corporation shall lie under this sub-section if the Corporation paid the commuted value of the disablement benefit on the basis of the decision of the medical board.” Since the Employees’ Insurance Court dismissed the application, he filed this appeal. 3. It was argued by the appellant that he is unable to do any work in the cotton factory because of the cotton particles which will create allergy. Having found that he is 50% disabled he could have been given full disablement benefit because he is totally disabled from working in the cotton factory. Considering his age and qualification he will not get any employment elsewhere. Even though his services were terminated, the Corporation also did not give him any alternate employment or re-employment as mentioned under section 19 of the Act. Section 19 reads as follows: “19. Considering his age and qualification he will not get any employment elsewhere. Even though his services were terminated, the Corporation also did not give him any alternate employment or re-employment as mentioned under section 19 of the Act. Section 19 reads as follows: “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.” 4. According to the appellant, termination was illegal in view of Regulation 98(iii) which reads as follows: “98. Discharge, etc., of employee under certain conditions.- If the conditions of service of any employee so allow, an employer may discharge or reduce on due notice an employee,- xx xx xx (iii) Who has been under medical treatment for any of the following diseases, duly certified in accordance with these regulations, after the employee has been under such treatment for a continuous period of 18 months or more, notwithstanding provision of clauses (i) and (ii):” Twenty nine diseases are mentioned in the above regulation. Item No.9 is ‘Bronchiectasis’. Bronchiectasis is defined in the Mosby’s Medical Dictionary as follows: “bronchiectasis, an abnormal condition of the bronchial tree, characterized by irreversible dilatation and destruction of the bronchial walls. The condition is sometime congenital but is more often a result of bronchial infection or of obstruction by a tumor or an aspirated foreign body. Symptoms of bronchiectasis include a constant cough productive of copious purulent sputum, hemoptysis, Chronic sinusitis, clubbing of fingers, and persistent moust, coarse rales. Some of the complications of bronchiectasis are pneumonia, lung abscess, empyema, brain abscess, and amyloidosis. Treatment includes frequent [postural drainage, antibiotics, and rarely, surgical resection of the affected part of the lungs. Therefore, it is contended that the appellant’s disease caused due to the allergy of cotton, the foreign substance, can be classified as bronchiectasis covered under the above regulation. Even otherwise, continued employment in the cotton factory is not possible for him. Treatment includes frequent [postural drainage, antibiotics, and rarely, surgical resection of the affected part of the lungs. Therefore, it is contended that the appellant’s disease caused due to the allergy of cotton, the foreign substance, can be classified as bronchiectasis covered under the above regulation. Even otherwise, continued employment in the cotton factory is not possible for him. An employer cannot give employment to a person with 50% disability and likelihood of aggravation of such diseases by working in such environment with exposure to cotton particles. His continuance there will be suicidal to him. In any event, the Corporation did not take any action against the employer and considering the fact that the employer’s establishment is a cotton factory, it cannot offer employment to the appellant in a different atmosphere. Considering his nature of job and qualification even the Corporation is unable to find an alternate employment as per section 19 of the Act. In this proceedings, question is not whether the termination was illegal or not. He is unable to work in the cotton factory because of the occupational disability and already he has 50% physical disability. 5. Now, we may consider the contentions raised on behalf of the Corporation. Learned counsel for the Corporation referred to us a decision of a Full Bench of this court in Vanajakshan v. Joseph (2003 (2) KLT 462 (F.B.)). That was a decision under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is true that total disablement is defined under the Workmen’s Compensation Act also. But, compensation has to be paid for the loss of earning capacity as provided under section 4 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which reads as follows: “4. Amount of compensation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:- Such a restrictive clause is not there under the Employees’ State Insurance Act. Even though both are social security legislations, there is an essential difference also. Factories wherein ten or more persons and establishments wherein 20 or more persons are employed are covered under the E.S.I. Act. Small establishments are covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, both employer and employee pay contributions to the Corporation. It is like an insurance. E.S.I. Corporation cannot deny benefits on mere technical grounds after collecting contributions payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is paid by the employers. Small establishments are covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, both employer and employee pay contributions to the Corporation. It is like an insurance. E.S.I. Corporation cannot deny benefits on mere technical grounds after collecting contributions payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is paid by the employers. No monthly contribution is payable by the employer or employee unlike the E.S.I. Act. A person with 50% loss of earning capacity and who lost his job because of the disability and who cannot continue to work in the cotton factory cannot be denied full benefits under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act. In this connection, we refer to the Division Bench decisions of this court in E.S.I. Corporation v. Raju (1994 (2) KLT 139) as well as E.S.I. Corporation v. Saseendran (1998 (1) KLT SN 29 (Case No.25)) where in this court held that if an employee is sent out of employment on account of disability, E.S.I. Corporation shall extend full rate of permanent disablement benefit to the employee especially when suitable alternate employment was not found out as provided under section 19 of the Act. The above judgment was followed in various cases including M.F.A.No.1144 of 2000 decided on 3.4.2000. Full Bench decision reported in 2003 (2) KLT 462 (supra) has to be understood in the light of Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 6. The appellant also submitted a decision of the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata (AIR 1976 SC 222). There a carpenter whose hand was lost was given the full compensation for loss of earning capacity even though physical disability was only 70%. The above decision was also referred to and explained in the decision reported in 2003 (2) KLT 462 (supra). In the decision of this court in E.S.I. Corporation v. Pushkaran (1993 (2) KLT 187) relied on by the counsel for the Corporation, disability as per the certificate issued by the Medical Board was only 20% and the question was whether a higher rate of benefit can be granted by the court. This court did not decide the matter. The matter was only remanded. Hence, that decision is not helpful to the Corporation. 7. This court did not decide the matter. The matter was only remanded. Hence, that decision is not helpful to the Corporation. 7. In view of the nature of occupational disability in this case, the certificates issued by the Medical Board, inability of the employer as well as the ESI Corporation to offer another employment in a different atmosphere without cotton particles and all other attending circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant should be given the full disablement benefits. The appeal is allowed.