AGENT, EAST INDIAN RAILWAY Vs. MAURICE CECIL RYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the East Indian Railway Company against an award of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bengal, made on 18 February 1936, wherein he held that the applicant workman, who is the respondent in this appeal, was entitled to receive compensation at 100 per cent. from the Agent of the East Indian Railway less a certain portion already paid, namely, Rs. 1,750. The facts of the case are shortly these: The respondent workman was employed by the Railway Company from 1927 as, what is called, a gunner guard. A gunner guard, it has been explained to us, is a man who is put in charge of sorting operations in a shunting yard. On 15 July 1933, whilst the workman was following his employment, he received serious injuries to his spine and as a result he was in hospital for over a year being discharged from hospital on 28 August 1934. A few days previous to his discharge, Mr. Banerjee, an eminent surgeon, gave a certificate which purported to assess the disability of the workman. In it he says: He complained of a great deal of pain on movement of the spine. He had no symptoms of pressure on the spinal cord, apart from a little weakness of the lower limbs. After treatment he has ankylosed spine in the middle which is somewhat bent forwards and is still painful probably due to Osteo Arthritic changes. His movements are slow and careful and not free and agile. I do not think he will be fit for active duty as a guard on a railway. But he will be fit for sedentary work and will be able to carry on his normal personal acts quite well. I would put him in category of Section 4, Ch. 2, Workmen's Compensation Act, and estimate his disability at 50 per cent.

(2.) I think the words "S. 4, Ch. 2, Workmen's Compensation Act," really mean Section 4-C (ii), Workmen's Compensation Act, which is as follows; Where permanent partial disablement results from the injury, the amount of compensation shall be in the case of an injury not specified in Sch. 1, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity permanently caused by the injury.

(3.) That was on 28 August 1934. On 10 September apparently he was examined by the District Medical Officer of the Railway Company who gave the following report: The above (that is, the workman) is physically unfit and permanently incapacitated for further railway service on account of disability in class A1, A2, A3, B1, B2 and C1, but fit for class C2 after compression fracture of 12 Dorsal Vertebra.