( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the order of the commissioner for workmen s Compensation-cum-Assistant commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,62,672/- and costs to the respondent/applicant in w. C. No. 1/2000 (Old W. C. No. 79/1999 ). ( 2 ) THE case of the respondent/applicant is that on 13-8-1998, when he was driving the bus bearing No. AP10 Z 2984 belonging to the appellant Corporation, from mahaboobnagar to Raichur, he was in volved in an accident due to negligence of the driver of a lorry and received injuries to his eyes and lost vision in the left eye and he was medically invalidated and so he took voluntary retirement. Appellant who admitted the involvement of the respondent in the accident denied that the injury due to which he lost sight in his left eye was due to the said accident. ( 3 ) IN support of his case respondent examined himself and marked Exs. A-1 to a-18. On behalf of the appellant it examined depot Superintendent and marked and exs. R-1 to R-7. ( 4 ) THE Commissioner found, that the accident occurred out of and during the course of the employment and taking the salary of the respondent as Rs. 2,000/- per month and the relevant factor as 135. 56 and disability as 60% awarded compensation rs. 1,62,672/- to him, ( 5 ) THOUGH the appeal is preferred on various grounds as the Commissioner has no territorial jurisdiction and that there is variance in the pleadings and the proof the main thrust is that the injury resulting in permanent to the respondent was not received by him in the accident in which he was involved, because he was able to perform duty for a few days even after the accident. ( 6 ) I find no merit in the contention of the appellant that the Commissioner who passed the order under appeal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition and since there is variance between the allegations in the petition and the evidence, respondent is not entitled to any relief. The provisions of CPC as to pleadings and proof cannot strictly be applied to the proceedings under the Workmen s compensation Act (the Act), which is but a welfare legislation. The provisions of CPC as to pleadings and proof cannot strictly be applied to the proceedings under the Workmen s compensation Act (the Act), which is but a welfare legislation. An injured workman, need only state about his being involved in an accident and that accident arose out of and during the course of his employment which his employer and that he received injuries therein and that those injuries resulted on disability to him. If the main essential ingredients are stated the othere details are matter of evidence. The rule debtor should seek the creditor can and has to be applied to the claims under the Act. So, an injured workman can file the petition before the Commissioner in whose jurisdiction he is even temporarily residing at the time of petition because the convenience of the injured workman is more important than the convenience of the employer. ( 7 ) IT is no doubt true that respondent seems to have attended duty even after the accident for a few days. The evidence on record shows that glass splinters went into the eyes of the respondent at the time of accident and that he was taken to hospital for the cleaning of the eyes. Probably because respondent was duty conscious he might have attended duty fora few days after the accident and later he must have felt that he cannot any long perform his duty and consulted the doctor again. Unfortunately instead of appreciating the duty mindedness of the respondent, the same is sought to be used as a ground to negative his claim for compensation. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there are different types of employees. Some employees malinger. Some employees come to duty even when they are sick. So, the fact that respondent attended duty for one or two days after the accident by itself is not and cannot be a ground for negativing his claim for compensation. ( 8 ) EX. A-1, report of the accident issued by the appellant corporation would clinch the issue for decision in this case. For the question in Column 8 reading "did the accident arise out of and in the course of his employment? The answer by appellant is recorded as "yes and on duty occurred. ( 8 ) EX. A-1, report of the accident issued by the appellant corporation would clinch the issue for decision in this case. For the question in Column 8 reading "did the accident arise out of and in the course of his employment? The answer by appellant is recorded as "yes and on duty occurred. " ( 9 ) FOR the question No. 13 reading: "after investigation, (a)have you any suspicion as to the genuineness of the accident? (b) It did not occur on duty as described? The Answer is recorded as "no". The above answers clearly establish the admission ~by the appellant of the respondent receiving injuries in the accident out of and during the course of accident. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, occurrence of an accident out of and during the course of the employment resulting in injuries is established by the respondent. ( 11 ) THE Medical Fitness Certificate produced by the respondent shows that he lost vision in the left eye. The injury suffered by the respondent is a scheduled injury. Therefore, the Commissioner took the disability of the respondent as 60%. As per the age of the respondent the relevant factor is fixed as 1345. 56. Though the respondent was drawing more than Rs. 2,000/-, in view of the ceiling fixed by the Act as on the date of the accident the Commissioner took the salary of the respondent as Rs. 2,000/-per month and fixed the compensation payable as Rs. 1,62,672/- which is perfectly in accordance with the Provisions of the Act. ( 12 ) SINCE, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, this Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No. costs.