JUDGMENT

SHINGHAL, J. :— This appeal by special leave is by Pratap Narain Singh Deo who is the proprietor of two cinema halls in Jeypore, district Koraput Orissa. It is not in dispute that Srinivas Sabta, respondent No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent ) was working as a carpenter for doing some ornamental work in a cinema hall of the appellant on July 6, 1968, when he fell down and suffered injuries resulting in the amputation of his left arm from the elbow. He served a notice on the appellant dated August 11, 1968 demanding payment of compensation as his regular employee. The appellant sent a reply dated August 21, 1968 stating that the respondent was a casual contractor, and that the accident had taken place solely because of his own negligence. The respondent then made a personal approach for obtaining the compensation, but to no avail. He therefore made an application to the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, respondent No. 2, stating that he was a regular employee of the appellant his wages were Rs. 120 per mensem, he had suffered the injury in the course of his employment and was entitled to compensation under the Workmen s Compensation Act 1923. (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) Notice of the application was served on the appellant 223 on October 10, 1968 calling upon him to show cause why penalty to the extent at 50 per cent and interest at 6 per cent. per annum should not be imposed on him under Section 4-A of the Act on the amount at compensation payable by him because of the default in making the payment at the compensation. The appellant contested the respondents claim on the grounds mentioned above and on the further ground that respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate on the claim . He filed a memorandum of agreement on April 10, 1969 accepting the liability to pay compensation for a sum which was found by the Commissioner to be so grossly inadequate that he refused to register it.

2. The Commissioner held in his order dated may 6. 1969 first the injury had resulted in the amputation at the left arm of the respondent above the elbow. He held further that the respondent was a carpenter by profession and by loss of his left hand above the elbow he has evidently been rendered unit for the work as carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only." He therefore adjudged him to have lost "1oo per cent of his earning capacity." On that basis, he calculated the amount of compensation at Rs. 9,800 and ordered the payment of penalty to the extent of 50 per cent, together with interest at 6 per cent, per annum making a total of Rs. 15,092.

3. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed a writ petition in the High Court at Orissa, but it was dismissed summarily on October 10, 1969. He has therefore come up in appeal to this Court by special leave.

4. It has not been disputed before us that the injury in question was caused to the respondent by an accident which arose out at and in the course at his employment with the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the injury resulted in amputation at his left arm at the elbow. It has however been argued that the injury did not result in permanent total disablement at the respondent, and that the Commissioner committed gross error of law in taking that view as there was truly partial disablement within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act which should have been deemed to have resulted in permanent partial disablement at the nature referred to in Item 3 at Part II at Schedule I of the Act. This argument has been advanced on the ground that the amputation was from 8" from tip of acromion and less than 41/2" below tip of olecranon. As will appear, there is no force in this argument.

5. The expression "total disablement" has been defined in Section 2 (I) of the Act as follows: "

(1) "total disablement" means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates work- man for all work which