The determination of disablement and compensation is based on the employee's incapacity for all work and the adequacy of the compensation agreement.

Somnath Ayyar, J.

1. A company called the Hutti Gold Mines Company, Ltd., is the appellant before us, and this appeal is presented under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act in which the complaint made is that assessment of the compensation payable to one of its employees, who is the respondent before us, is excessive.

2. The employee was an underground workman in the company. On January 28, 1957 he met with an accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of his employment. The injury which he sustained during that accident resulted in "fracture dislocation of the body of the lumbar vertebra No. 1."

On 26 October, 1957, it is stated, there was an agreement between the employee and the company that the employee should receive from the company a sum of Rs. 420 in full and final settlement of all his claims against the company. That agreement was forwarded by the company to the Commissioner of Labour who forwarded it to the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Raichur, for registration under S. 28 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

3. On 10 October, 1957, the employee was discharged on the ground that he was "medically unfit."

4. On 26 May, 1958, an application was presented on behalf of the employee by the general secretary of the Hutti Gold Mines Labour Union, Hutti, in which it was stated that the agreement which had been forwarded for registration was obtained by undue influence and that it should not be registered. There was also a claim made in that application that there was partial disablement to the extent of 35 per cent, and that the payment of compensation should be directed on that basis.

On 26 July, 1958, this application was followed up by yet another application presented on behalf of the employee in the same way, in Which the allegation was that there was total disablement in consequence of the injury sustained during the accident and that the determination of the Compensation should be made on that basis. The Commissioner fully accepted the claim of the employee and determined the compensation payable to be Rs. 2,100. Deducting from this sum of money a sum or Rs. 769 already paid to the workman, he directed the payment of the balance of Rs. 1,304. It is from this determination that the company appeals.

5. It is not disputed before us that if the conclusion reached by the commissioner that there was total disablement is correct, the determination made by the Commissioner is above criticism. But it is strenuously urged that his disablement was only partial and not total. And it is also urged that it was impossible, for the employee, after he had agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 420 under the agreement which he signed on 26 October, 1957, to make any further claim to compensation.

6. On the question whether the agreement on which the company depended could not but have been registered by the Commissioner, it is enough to say that the Commissioner had under S. 28 of the Act the discretion to register it or not. He had the power under the provisions of that section to refuse registration not only if he was satisfied that the agreement was obtained by fraud or undue influence or other improper means but also in cases in which he was satisfied that the agreement ought not to be registered by reason of the inadequacy of the sum or amount which the employee agreed to receive by way of compensation. Sri Sathyanarayana is surely not right when he contends that there was no allegation by the employee at any stage that any undue influence was exercised over the employee by the company. Indeed in the application presented on 26 May, 1958 on behalf of the employee, that allegation was made. But it was really not necessary for the Commissioner to record a finding that there was any such undue influence and it is also quite significant that the Commissioner did not record any such finding, nor are there any sufficient reasons to think that there was the exercise of any such undue influence. It is unnec