Short Note : 1. Hari Singh was an employee of the J.C. Mills and he was insured with the Corporation appellant. While testing the tightness of the cloth on stenter Machine, his cloth accidentally entangled with the rotating shaft with the result that his testicles got entangled in the shafting and he sustained severe injuries. The accident occurred because the shafting was not covered by any safety guard which was mandatory under section 21 of the Factories Act. The injury to Hari Singh was an employment injury and caused due to negligence of the Mills for not providing safety guards. The Medical Board had permanently assessed the loss of earning capacity of Hari Singh at 10%. 2. The Insurance Corporation paid Rs.379.24 to Hari Singh as temporary disablement, Rs.121 as permanent disablement, and proposed to pay Rs.1,295 as permanent disablement for life. The Corporation claimed compensation from the Mills. The Labour Court gave an award to the effect that it allowed the sum of Rs.37924 in favour of the Insurance Corporation, but refused the rest of the claim. The refusal of the claim was based on the ground that even though disablement injury is proved, it is not proved by evidence that the earning capacity of Hari Singh has diminished. The Insurance Corporation filed the appeal and the Mills filed the cross-objections in respect of Rs.379.24. Held: The case arises when sections 66 and 67 of the Act were not repealed with effect from 17th June 1967. Similarly, sections 15-A and 15-B in section 2 were added subsequently. On the basis of this, the learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that it was not essential for the Corporation to prove that there was any reduction in earning capacity. Section 66 of the Act says that there should be an employment injury. The definition of 'Employment injury' is given in section 2 (8) of the Act which in terms, refers to Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923 and says that the injury should entitle such employee to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923. Therefore, we will have to see whether any compensation can be paid under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for an injury which is sustained by Hari Singh. Therefore, we will have to see whether any compensation can be paid under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for an injury which is sustained by Hari Singh. Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 says that the employer is liable for the compensation, if a personal injury is caused to workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. From this, we will have to go to section 4 thereof which deals with the amount of compensation. So, taking all the sections together, the main thing is that if there is loss of earning capacity caused by the injury, then under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the employer will be liable if that injury is not specified in Schedule I of Part II. The injury sustained by Hari Singh is not included in Schedule I Part II. Therefore, it will be governed by section 4 (ii), as mentioned above. So, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no need to prove reduction in earning capacity cannot be accepted. 3. It is true that the Medical Board has given a certificate that the disablement of Hari Singh is 10%. But, that itself will not entitle him to any compensation, because it has come in evidence also that there is no reduction in his pay or the amount he was earning formerly. Unless it is proved that there is reduction in earning capacity, no compensation can be paid only. On the basis of disablement to the extent of 10%. 1968 ACJ 270, 1970 ACJ 79 and 1974 ACJ 229 relied on. 4. According to section 21 of the Factories Act, it is an absolute duty to put guard on moving parts which are dangerous Here, in evidence, it has come to notice that no guards were put on these moving parts. Therefore, the liability under section 21 of the Factories Act is absolute. It is also not proved that Hari Singh was provided with the dress. Neither instructions are proved. On the contrary, the documents show that the Company has accepted that the accident happened because there were no guards. From the evidence also, it is not proved that Shri Singh was negligent. It is also not proved that Hari Singh was provided with the dress. Neither instructions are proved. On the contrary, the documents show that the Company has accepted that the accident happened because there were no guards. From the evidence also, it is not proved that Shri Singh was negligent. Regarding negligence of Hari Singh, at the first instance when the report is made, the Company has made no grievance. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the Company is liable to pay temporary disablement amount of Rs.37925 and that Hari Singh was in the hospital from 18-9-1962 to 28-2-1963 which is proved by Ex.P/3 to P/9. are correct and those findings are confirmed. Appeal and cross-objections dismissed.