JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal under section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") arises out of the order of the Commissioner under the Act in case No. 35/74-78 whereby the Commissioner dismissed the claim of the appellant for payment of compensation. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant was working with the respondent Corporation and while working on 25-4-1973, he received injuries to his person due to the fall of a stone Chata. He was admitted in the hospital and remained there from 25-4-1973 to 31-5-1973. 3. The Commissioner framed number of issues, preliminary and regular, on the pleadings of the parties and they are being reproduced as under :— Preliminary Issues : 1. Whether the application is maintainable in the present form ? O.P.A. 2. Whether the applicant is a workman as defined under the Workmens Compensation Act ? O.P.A. 3. Whether the applicant has received any Scheduled injury ? O.P.A. Regular Issues : 1. Whether the applicant was an employee of the respondent at the time of occurrence ? O.P.A. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to get the amount claimed or any part of it ? O.P.A. 3 Whether the applicant has lost the earning capacity by 50% as alleged. If so, its effect ? O.P.A. 4. Relief. 4. After recording the evidence in the case, the Commissioner decided preliminary Issue No. 3 and regular Issue No.3 against the appellant holding thereby that the appellant failed to prove that the injuries sustained by him were scheduled injuries and that the loss of earning capacity as a result of these injuries was also not proved. It was also held that the appellant failed to prove that he sustained these injuries during the course of his employment. It was the result of the findings on these issues that the claim of the appellant for compensation failed before the Commissioner. This is how the matter has been brought to this Court. 5. Shri Lokinder Thakur contends that the findings of the Commissioner that the appellant did not prove that injuries sustained by him were scheduled injuries were wrong since a workman is entitled to compensation for non-scheduled injuries also under section 4 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act. This provision reads as follows : — "4. 5. Shri Lokinder Thakur contends that the findings of the Commissioner that the appellant did not prove that injuries sustained by him were scheduled injuries were wrong since a workman is entitled to compensation for non-scheduled injuries also under section 4 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act. This provision reads as follows : — "4. Amount of compensation.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows namely : (a) ..................... (b) ..................... (c) Where permanent partial disablement results from the injury— (i) ................ (ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity permanently caused by the injury. Explanation.—Where more injuries than one are caused by the same accident the amount of compensation payable under this head shall be aggregated but not so in any case as to exceed the amount which would have been payable if permanent disablement had resulted from the injuries ; " 6. In order to support his submission, reference to AIR 1968 Cal 129, P.E. Davis and Co. v. Kesto Routh was made. In Para 14 of this judgment, the Court said :— "...............There are certain scheduled injuries in regard to which the percentage of loss of earning capacity has been statutorily fixed so that in those case the Commissioner has only to refer to the appropriate schedule and find out the quantum of compensation that has to be awarded to the workman. But where the Commissioner has to deal with cases of permanent disablement inflicted by injuries which are not scheduled, the provisions of section 4 (1) (c) (ii) of the Workmens Compensation Act are attracted and the Commissioner has to assess the compensation in terms of those provisions. In assessing the compensation in such cases, the most important and, indeed, the paramount thing that the Commissioner has to consider is the loss of earning capacity. There can be no question that diminution of physical powers or any disablement of the body would in most cases affect the efficiency of the workman and also adversely affect his earning capacity but there is no arithmetical relation between the amount of disability and the amount of diminution in earning capacity in such cases. There can be no question that diminution of physical powers or any disablement of the body would in most cases affect the efficiency of the workman and also adversely affect his earning capacity but there is no arithmetical relation between the amount of disability and the amount of diminution in earning capacity in such cases. Indeed, everything will depend on the nature of work that a workman has to do, the nature of the injury as well as on other environmental circumstances..............." 7. I am in agreement with the view taken in this decision and hold that the case of the appellant is covered under section 4 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act and the view of the Commissioner that a workman is entitled to compensation only in the case of a scheduled injury is erroneous. 8. It was further contended by Shri Thakur that the findings of the Commissioner that there is no evidence to indicate that the petitioner sustained the injury during the course of employment deserves to be set aside in view of overwhelming evidence on the record of this case. My attention has been drawn to the statements of number of witnesses. There is evidence that clearly points out that the appellant was working at Jakhu road near Hanuman temple on 25-4-1973 and while doing so a stone Chata fell on his leg causing injuries to him. He became unconscious and was taken to Rippon Hospital wherefrom he was shifted to Snowdon hospital. He remained there for sufficiently long time. This fact has been proved by number of other witnesses and the reliance of the other side on the statement of RW 1 and the Bed Head Ticket cannot be considered reliable and depicting the real state of affairs. It is, therefore, held that the petitioner is a workman and he sustained the injury during the course of his employment. 9. Finally, comes the question of loss of earning capacity. Shri Thakur submits that there is fundamental difference between the physical disability pointed out by the doctor in his certificate pointing out permanent disability to extent of 25 percent and permanent disability in so far as the earning capacity of the claimant is concerned. In order to support his submission, reference to P.E. Daviss case (supra) was made in addition to AIR 1966 Bom 240, Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ashru Jaiwant Tribhuvan. In order to support his submission, reference to P.E. Daviss case (supra) was made in addition to AIR 1966 Bom 240, Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ashru Jaiwant Tribhuvan. This submission has great force and it is seen that while determining compensation under this Act, no such distinction is taken care of nor a finding is given by the Commissioner as to the extent of disability by way of loss of earning capacity permanently caused by the injury. This has to be done by the Commissioner. For this purpose, he may seek assistance from the physical disability certificate of the doctor but that cannot be the sole basis to arrive at such finding. This finding has to be of the Commissioner and has to be based on the evidence that is placed before him for the determination of compensation. Perusal of the order under appeal clearly demonstrates that no clear finding has been given by the Commissioner on this aspect of the case. 10. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this appeal is accepted and the Commissioner is directed to allow the parties to lead evidence on the aspect of disability incurred on account of injuries in question and then proceed further to determine the compensation payable to the appellant in accordance with law. It is apparent that this matter is quite old, therefore, it is desirable that the Commissioner will decide this matter within a period of six months from the receipt of the case file. Ordered accordingly. Appeal allowed.