(1.) The appellant, Sukhai, was and is still employed as a cop-winder in the Jute Mill of the respondent jute company. On 26-12-1951, he was at his usual work when some chinese clay balls, attached to the winding-rod, broke loose and flying at a great speed, struck him in his left eye, causing a bleeding injury. He was immediately taken to the Chief Medical Officer of the Mills, who gave him first aid and then sent him to the Chinsurah Hospital for further treatment There the eyeball was removed on 3-1-1952. The workman was discharged on the llth of January following, but it appears that he had to attend hospital [or further attention on certain subsequent dates as well. Ultimately, he resumed his duties on 5-2-1952.
(2.) The appellant, as I have already stated, is still in the employment of the respondent company. He is earning his usual wages and, according to his own evidence, he can do his usual work.
(3.) On 4-6-1952, the appellant made an application for compensation on account of the injury to his eye. He described the injury as 'loss of vision of the left eye (eye ball removed)' and asked for a compensation of Rs. 1,260, subsequently amended to Rs. 882, on the basis that the injury was a scheduled injury and, therefore, the compensation was to be assessed on the basis of a thirty per Cent. loss" of the earning capacity. He stated his monthly wages to be Rs. 80 to Rs. 100 per month.