Mohan, J.:— Against the concurrent judgments of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, and a learned Single Judge of this Court, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred in so far as the respondent has been awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 11,020.80 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The respondent filed a petition under S. 10 of the Act, claiming compensation for the loss of four fingers in his left hand due to an accident which took place on 17 August, 1978. The said accident took place in the course of the respondent's employment in the appellant's enterprises. The workman would state that he was getting a salary of Rs. 370 per mensem and he was also earning some amount by playing Veena.
3. The management opposed the claim inter alia on two grounds:
(1) The accident took place on a day which was a holiday for the factory, and
(2) In any event, by the loss of four fingers on the left hand the workman had not suffered any loss of earning capacity under S. 4(1)(c).
4. Both the above contentions have been negatived by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the compensation as stated above was awarded. Aggrieved by the same, A.A.O No. 416 of 1979 was preferred to this Court. Before the learned Single Judge of this Court the same points were reiterated and for the second proposition, reliance was placed on Sewa Singh v. Indian Hume Pipe Company [A.I.R 1964 Punjab 512], where it has been held that if loss of earning power is not established the claim under S. 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act is not maintainable and further, so long as the workman continues in the employment in the factory and earns the same salary he could not get compensation. The learned Single Judge did not agree with this ruling also and confirmed the award made by the Additional Commissioner. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.
5. It is strenuously contended by Sri Krishna Raja, learned counsel for the appellant, that the evidence of the manager of a bank, who was a disinterested witness, clearly established that the accident took place on 17 August, 1978, which was a holiday for the factory of the appellant and the management did not ask the workman to clean the machinery. Therefore, in his submission, the accident was not “in the course of employment” for the provisions of the Act to be attracted.
6. Secondly, it is urged that in any event, by loss of his four fingers in the left hand the workman has not suffered loss of earning capacity which alone will make the management liable for compensation under S. 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. Mere loss of four fingers without there being loss of earning capacity will not be sufficient. It has been so laid down in the decision in Sewa Singh v. Indian Hume Pipe Company [A.I.R 1964 Punjab 512] (vide supra).
7. Sri R. Ganesan, learned counsel for the respondent-workman, would contend in opposition to this that in so far as a factual finding has been rendered that the accident took place prior to the inspection of the factory by the bank officials at 11 A.M that it would be evident from the fact that the workman was admitted in the hospital at 9 A.M and that, therefore, the accident was in the course of the employment.
8. As regards the second of the contentions, the earning capacity in future also is an important factor to be taken into consideration as has been held by the learned Judge. Once there is loss, the statutory liability is attracted. Thus he would state that no case has been made out warranting interference with the concurrent orders.
9. We have given our very careful consideration to the above arguments. We are of the view that both the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are not sustainable. In this case, the evidence discloses that the accident took place round about 9.30 A.M because by 9.40 A.M a medical officer by name Dr. Sundaramurthi had come to treat the workman when the latter was brought to the hospital of which due intimation was given to the police. Therefore, though the management had examined the manager of State Bank of Travancore to the effect that he inspected the factory at 11 A.M on 17 August, 1978, and that it was a holiday, that will not advance the case of the appellant. Inasmuch as the accident took place during the course of cleaning the machinery certainly it must be held to be “in the course of employment.” We see no reason to dislodge the factual finding.
10. Coming to the scope of S. 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, we are of the view that the loss of earning power should not be confined only to the present capacity because it is contended by the management that at the same salary the workman is continued in employment. That will be only begging the question. If this were to be the law, the employer can easily evade the provisions of the Act by continuing the employment at the same terms as was enjoyed by the workman prior to the accident. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Punjab High Court in Sewa Singh v. Indian Hume Pipe Company [A.I.R 1964 Punjab 512] (vide supra). Nor again can it be said that if in future the workman is compelled to seek employment at reduced wages he can claim compensation. That would only result in the negation of the beneficial provisions of the Act which are intended to benefit unfortunate workmen like the respondent herein. Added to this, should the management wind up its business, the workman will be in the lurch because no person with his eyes open will give employment to a person who had suffered an injury of this kind. Therefore, this is clearly a case to which S. 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act would apply. Consequently, we agree with the judgment forming the subject-matter of the appeal.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.