( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmens compensation, Etawah dated 6,4. 1977, awarding a compensation of Ks. 9676. 80 to the appellant mohan Lal together with interest at he rate of six per cent from 8th October, 1073 up to the date of payment. Appeal No. 363 of 1977 is by Mohan Lal, the workman, while Appeal No. 216 of 1977 is by the employer, Madan Mohan Verma. These appeals have been filed under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act. Roth the workman as well as the employer seem to be aggrieved by the aforesaid order.

( 2 ) MOHAN Lal filed an application under Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation from the respondent Madan Mohan Verma on the following allegations. Mohan Lal was employed by Madan Mohan Verma as mechanic/workman for installing a cotton ginning machine and chalf cutting machine on the daily wages of Rs. 15/ -. On 8th October, 1973 while Mohan Lal was taking the trial of the churl cutting machine his right hand got stuck into the teeth of the gear roller of the machine and all his fingers and thumb of his right hand were cut off resulting in total disability of a permanent character affecting his future earning capacity as well. He claimed compensation from Madan Mohan Verma, his employer, but the latter declined to give any compensation. Thereupon Mohan Lal moved the application under Section 3 of the workmens Compensation Act, claiming compensation on the basi. s ol the monthly wages of Rs. 450/ -. the application was contested by Madan Mohan Vernia. His case was that Mohan Lal had sustained the injuries during the process of getting his own fodder cut into pieces in the machine installed by him. Under the circumstames, the employer could not be held liable to pay compensation. Furthermore, the injuries had been caused by the negligence of Mohan Lal. It was also denied that Mohan Lal was a workman.

( 3 ) ON the pleadings of the parties relevant issues were framed by the Commissioner. The finding ol the Commissioner is that Mohan Lal was a workman ol the respondent, at the time of the accident in question, lie disbelieved the case of the employer that Mohan Lal sustained the injuries while he was cutting his own fodder at the machine. It was held that the injuries caused to the workman were sustained by him in the course of his employment with the res pondent. The Commissioner then proceeded to determine the compensation payable to Mohan Lal. He found on an analysis ol facts that the monthly wages of Mohan Lal should be calculated at Rs. 120/ -. The Commissioner further held that in view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the workman, he was entitled to be awarded compensation under part II of the Schedule 1 to the aforesaid. Act which deals with the computation ol compensation in cases of injuries which result in permanent/partial disablement. Under Part II of that schedule the compensation payable in case of the loss ol the thumb and four fingers of one hand is 60% of the loss of the earning capacity. The Commissioner then applied IV Schedule as amended by the Workmens Com pensation (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. (if) of 1976), under which the amount payable iu the case of permanent disablement was raised from the existing figure of Rs. 9,800/- to 16,128/-, where, as here, monthly wages are not more than Ks. 120/-In view of the fact that the commissioner had held that the disablement was partial, he calculated the amount of the compensation payable to the workman at 60% of Rs. 16, 128/- which worked out to Ks. 9,676,80, In addition, the Commissioner awarded 6% simple interest running from the date of the accident to the date of payment to the workman.

( 4 ) THREE points were urged in support of the appeal by the learned Counsel for the employer: firstly, that Madan Lal was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (n) of the aforesaid act, as he was doing work of a casual nature; Second,