1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.736/2008. Kanhaiya Lal Meena & Another. VERSUS The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation & Another. 03.03.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Rajesh Goswami, for the appellants. ***** Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This is an employer's appeal against the judgment passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner by which the compensation has been awarded to the claimant for an amount of Rs.66,078/- with interest and penalty of Rs.10,000/-. The claimant was working and employed with the appellant for doing R.C.C. work on the roof. The claimant suffered injuries on account of electric shocks being received by the claimant from the overhead wires which were going above the roof where the claimant was working. The submission of the learned counsel fo rthe appellant is that the claimant was not employed by him but was an employee of the contractor. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before the learned court below, Nawal Kishore, who was the alleged contractor deposed that the claimant was employed by him. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no such plea raised in reply to the claim that the Nawal Kishore was the contractor and the claimant was an employee of the contractor. 2 In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I do not find that the findings given by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner on issue No.1 call for any interference. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has given a finding of 20% permanent disability unilaterally without there being any certificate issued by the medical practitioner/medical board. It has come on record and which is not disputed that as a result of the injuries suffered by the claimant, there was an amputation of the fingers above the half portion of the palm of right hand and as a result of the aforesaid injury and amputation of palm, the claimant cannot perform the work which he was performing at the time of accident. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, though there may not be any certificate to that effect issued by the medical practitioner/ medical board about the disability but looking to the nature of the injury and nature of work in which the claimant was employed the findings call for no interference. I do not feel that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner committed any error in holding that there was 20% disability for the purposes of computation of compensation. In the facts and circumstances, this appeal as well as the stay application are dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.