Hon’ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—The respondent, who is an employee in a factory, suffered injury in his right ear and was referred by the Corporation to the Medical Board for Medical Examination for determination of his disablement as postulated in Section 54-Aof the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Regulation-72 of the year 1950 under the Act.

2. The Medical Board in its report dated 20.2.1992 noted that the test does not reveal Hearing Loss and there was no disablement injury, and, therefore, the employee was not entitled to any disablement benefit. The employee then went before the Employees Insurance Court, Kanpur. He did not file an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Medical Board because he had the option to go straight to the Court by virtue of the provisions as contained in Clause-ll sub-section (2) of Section 54-A of the Act. The provision is as follows:

“(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;”

3. Before the Employees’ Insurance Court, the respondent filed a report of his examination of his ear of L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur which stated that there was approximately loss of 40 dts. of hearing because of injury. The learned Judge accepted the report of L.L.R. Hospital in part and held that there was 30% loss of earning capacity of the employee permanently and set aside the decision of the Medical Board.

4. The appellant-Corporation has come in appeal against the said order.

5. Counsel for both the parties have been heard.

6. One of the argument advanced by the Counsel for the appellant-Corporation is that the Part-II of Schedule-I of Section 2(15) (A) and (15) (B) of the Act does not contain any reference to any Ear injury and no disablement benefit can, therefore, be awarded for an Ear injury. The relevant Section 2(15) (A) is as follows:

“(15) (A) “Permanent partial disablement” means such disablement of a permanent nature, as reduces the earning capacity of an employee in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of the accident resulting in the disablement :

Provided that every injury specified in Part-ll of the Second Schedule shall be deemed to result in permanent partial disablement.”

7. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is unacceptable because it will appear from the reading of the aforesaid section that injuries contained in Part-ll of Schedule-I above are not exhaustive and rightly so because injuries to Human Body can be so varied and variegated that it is not possible to classify or codify them in their entirety. The earlier part of Section 2(15) (A) before the proviso clearly indicates that there can be other injuries which can be deemed to cause disablement.

8. The other point for consideration where the appellant however, succeeds is that the Court below has taken into consideration the report of a hospital in preference of the report of the Medical Board constituted under the Act.

9. The ‘Act’ does not provide for an examination of the injured person to decide the Disablement benefit by any other doctor or hospital except the Medical Board constituted under the Act, If reports from a private doctor or of hospital are allowed, it will open a flood-gate for diverse reports and there will be chaos and confusion and it will be difficult for the Court to decide the matter. Since the ‘Act’ has provided for a Medical Board and also for an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal, it is these two only which have the authority to give Reports, with rega