JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present first appeal is filed by the appellant Employees State Insurance Corporation, Ahmedabad, under sec. 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Act') challenging the impugned judgment and order in First Appeal No. 13/94 by the ESI Court dated 9.12.1994 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent workman. 2. The facts of the case as narrated, briefly summarized, are as follows: "2.1 The respondent suffered employment injury on 22.1.1992. The Medical Board after examining the respondent workman observed that there was permanent disability to the extent of 6%. The Medical Board opined that there was stiffness of the right forearm, wrist and the fingers and therefore it resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 6%. The appellant preferred first appeal before the appellate court contending that it was final disability and he was unable to perform his day to day activities. It was contended that the disability should be considered to be permanent disability as per Item 10 in Sch. 2 of the ESI Act. The ESI Court on the basis of material and evidence allowed the appeal holding the disability upto the tune of 60% as it has affected his earning capacity. It is in these circumstances the present appellant ESI Corporation preferred the present appeal under sec. 82 of the ESI Act." 3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai for the appellant Corporation and learned advocate Ms. Asha Gupta for the respondent workman. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Desai submitted that there is no evidence that the respondent was out of job or his earning capacity has been affected or reduced. Therefore, she submitted that the ESI Corporation has assessed the disability to the tune of 60% which is only a guess work. It was strenuously submitted that there is no evidence of loss of earning capacity and as the respondent had recovered and there was mere stiffness it could not lead to disability. It was submitted that assuming that there was disability, the Medical Board having given the expert opinion for disability to the extent of 6% which has been raised by the ESI Court to the extent of 60% is not plausible. It was submitted that such an assessment or enhancement of disability without any evidence is only a conjuncture and surmise and therefore the present appeal may be allowed. 5. It was submitted that such an assessment or enhancement of disability without any evidence is only a conjuncture and surmise and therefore the present appeal may be allowed. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Gupta referred to the papers including the paper-book and submitted that it cannot be said that there is no material or evidence as the papers of the form with regard to the injury as well as the findings of the medical board are placed on record. She referred to the papers and the injury and submitted that as stated in the report of the accident injuries are received as the hand was crushed. She further submitted that it has been discussed in the impugned judgment by the ESI Court and it has been observed that impairment is there though he may not have lost the fingers but there is a disability when he is not able to bend the fingers or hold things. She also referred to Part II providing for "List of injuries deemed to result in permanent partial disablement." It was submitted that Item 10 provide:- "Loss of a hand or of the thumb and four fingers of one hand or amputation from 11.43 cm. below tip of olecranon." Percentage of disability: 60% Learned advocate Ms. Gupta therefore strenuously submitted that even if there is no amputation or fingers have not been lost it is as good as permanent loss for the purpose of functional capacity. She has referred to the impugned judgment and submitted that it cannot be said that the assessment of disability is on the basis of only guess work as sought to be canvassed. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Gupta referred to sec. 82 of the ESI Act and submitted that it refers to appeal and provides that an appeal shall lie only if it involves a substantial question of law. Therefore, it was emphasised that the aspect of assessment of disability is a question of fact and appreciation of material and evidence which is required to be considered on the basis of the evidence and it can hardly be said to be any question of law. Therefore, it was emphasised that the aspect of assessment of disability is a question of fact and appreciation of material and evidence which is required to be considered on the basis of the evidence and it can hardly be said to be any question of law. In support of her contention she has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 380 in the case of Boodireddy Chandraiah & Others vs. Arigela Laxmi & Another and submitted that as observed only if a substantial question of law is involved, the second appeal could be entertained. In view of the provisions of sec. 82(2) of the Act, the same analogy would be applicable. She has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of this High Court reported in 2012 (III) CLR 715 in the case of Regional Director, Employees State Insurance vs. Nileshkumar Jasubhai and submitted that it has been clearly observed that the ESI Court could enhance the percentage of disability considering the aspect of his functional disability. It was submitted that it is a finding of fact given by the ESI Court and no question of law can be said to have been involved and therefore the same observations and findings will be applicable to the facts of the case and this case is also covered by the observations of the court. She has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in 2005 (I) LLJ 166. 7. In view of the rival submissions it is required to be considered whether the present second appeal deserves to be entertained. 8. The present appeal is filed by the appellant Corporation under sec. 82 of the ESI Act. The provisions of sec. 82 (2) provide: "An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law." Thus, it is evident that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of the Employees Insurance Court if it involves a substantial question of law. The finding of disability based on appreciation of material and evidence again with reference to the schedule provided in the Act itself can hardly be said to be involving any question of law, much less any substantial question of law. The finding of disability based on appreciation of material and evidence again with reference to the schedule provided in the Act itself can hardly be said to be involving any question of law, much less any substantial question of law. The submissions which have been made referring to Sch. 2 Part II which refer, "list of injuries deemed to result in permanent partial disablement." Item 10 as emphasised has provided for loss of a hand or thumb and fingers. It is required to be stated that the legislature has clearly provided with word "or" that either it could be amputation or it could be a loss of hand or thumb. Therefore, the word "loss" would mean a lack of utility. 9. Therefore, the Schedule has also provided for loss of only thumb and loss of hand or of thumb and four fingers. In the facts of the case the respondent workman has loss of thumb and four fingers with the stiffness that he is not able to bend it to hold. Admittedly, he would be doing manual work. When he goes for work he would be required to use his hand for lifting any article for the purpose of his manual job or for carrying on his work as a worker. Therefore, it would certainly affect his ability to function which can be considered as functional disability. It is well-accepted that it is not only disability or percentage of disability which is required to be considered but it is the functional loss or disability resulting from injury for the purpose of functional loss which a man would suffer has to be considered. The reliance placed by learned advocate Ms. Gupta on a judgment of this High Court in the case of Regional Director, Employees State Insurance vs. Nileshkumar Jasubhai, 2012 (III) CLR 715, has addressed similar issue with regard to enhancement of percentage of the disability by the ESI Court and it has been clearly observed that it is a finding of fact based on material and evidence and it cannot be termed as a substantial question of law. Again, in that judgment, observations have been made with quotation of the earlier judgment that when a social legislation for conferment of benefit on the workman is considered it should be liberally construed with a view to achieve the object of the Act. Again, in that judgment, observations have been made with quotation of the earlier judgment that when a social legislation for conferment of benefit on the workman is considered it should be liberally construed with a view to achieve the object of the Act. Thus, such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be construed in its correct perspective so as to fructify the legislative intention underlying the enactment. A useful reference can be made to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2012 SCW 902 in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. & Others. "Under the Directive Principles the State has the obligation for securing just and humane conditions of work which includes a living wage and decent standard of life. The said Act obviously seeks to promote those goals. Therefore, interpretation of the said Act must not only be liberal but it must be informed by the values of Directive Principles. Therefore, an awareness of the social perspective of the Act must guide the interpretative process of the legislative device." It has been also quoted referring to Lord Denning with regard to the purposive approach to the interpretation of the words used in a statute and it has been observed: "A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in this texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He must then do so as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases." 10. Therefore, having regard to the findings based on the material and evidence, even on merits, which has been discussed with reference to Sch. 2 Part II as stated above, it cannot be said that there is any error committed by the court below regarding the assessment of disability which should call for any interference. The present appeal preferred by the appellant-Corporation, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.