Partial loss of vision of one eye is covered by Item 26 of Part II of Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the words 'limb or member' in the note to Schedule I include the eye.

1. THIS appeal has been referred to the full Bench by a division Bench consisting of A. N. Sen C. J. (as his Lordship then was) and R. M. Dutta, J, as the Bench could not agree with the decision of another Division bench reported in 80 C. W. N., 513 (Katras Jherriah Coal Co. Ltd. v. Kamakhya Paulj. We may state the facts leading to the present reference.

2. THE respondent Gokul Chandra Mondal, a workman in the wage group of Rs. 300-400/- per month under the appellant, Lipton (India) Ltd., filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen s' Compensation claiming from the appellant a sum of rs. 3,780/- as compensation at the rate of 30% loss of his earning capacity alleging that on March 28, 1972 he had sustained an injury to his left eye by the fall of iron particles with the consequent loss of vision in an accident arising out of in the course of his employment under the appellant. The appellant admitted the employment of the respondent under it, his rate of wages and the injury suffered by him in course of his employment, but denied that he had lost the vision of his left eye, as alleged. . It was alleged that the respondent was disabled for 14 days and thereafter he resumed his duty on April 12, 1972 without any permanent partial disability or earning capacity. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 55/- to the respondent as compensation.

The Commissioner, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties including the medical evidence, came to the finding that the vision of the left eye of the respondent workman had been affected due to the injury he had sustained, and that he had sustained permanent partial disability in the left eye in the accident arising out of and in course of his employment under the appellant. As to the amount of compensation, the Commissioner relied on a decision of a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High court in Raghuraj Singh v. Eastern railway, 1967 (1) L. L. J. 68 and took the view that the respondent was entitled to compensation at the rate of 30% of the loss of his earning capacity as fixed by Item 26 of Part II of the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, overruling the contention of the appellant that Item 26 was hot applicable, and that compensation was to be determined under section 4 (1) (c) (ii)of the Act. In that view of the matter, the Commissioner held that the respondent had sustained loss of earning capacity to the extent of 30% as fixed under Item 26. He allowed the application of the respondent and directed payment to him by the appellant of the sum of Rs. 3,780/- less the sum of Rs. 55/-already paid by the appellant.

3. BEING aggrieved by the said order of the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, the appellant preferred an appeal to this Court which was heard by the Bench that referred the appeal to the Full Bench. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant challenged the propriety of the finding of the Commissioner that the respondent workman had sustained a permanent partial disability of his left eye. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that even assuming that the respondent workman had suffered partial loss of vision of the left eye, Item 26 of Part II of Schedule i of the Act was inapplicable,' and that compensation should be determined in accordance with the provision of section 4 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act for such partial loss of vision. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on a Bench decision of this court reported in 80 C. W. N. 53 (Katras Jherriah Coal Co. Ltd. v. Kamakhya Paul) which took a view contrary to the decision in Raghuraj Singh's case (supra) of the Allahabad High Court,

4. THE Court affirmed the finding of the Commissioner that the respondent had sustained a partial permanent disability of his left eye. The Court, however, agreed with the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Raghuraj singh's case (supra) and took the view that Item 26 of Part- II of Schedule- I of the A