ORDER 1. This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short, WC Act) has been filed by the employer against an order dated 18.1.2010 passed by Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Khandwa in Case No.42/2009/WCNF holding that the disability sustained by the respondent-workman is 100%. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass.Suffice it to say that respondent was an employee under the employment of the appellant and was discharging the work of “Fitter” for the last 13 years from the date of accident, i.e., 23.2.2009. The workman sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment since his right leg wringled with in the belt of a machine as a result of which he became seriously injured and also sustained injuries in his right hand. During course of his treatment, his left leg was amputated below the knee and fracture was also found in his right hand. Hence, the workman submitted an application under section 10 of the WC Act for obtaining compensation praying that he has become 100% disabled. 3. The application filed by the workman under section 10 of the WC Act was contested by the appellants by filing written reply. The Commissioner under the WC Act framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties came to hold that the workman has sustained 100% disability and thus passed an order of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,98,076/- without imposing any interest and penalty. 4. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the employer. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that workman did not examine any doctor or produced any certificate indicating that he has received 100% disability and, therefore, holding him to be 100% disabled, the learned Commissioner without any evidence and in flagrant violation of law passed an order holding that workman sustained 100% disability, therefore, by allowing this appeal and holding that respondent sustained only 50% disability, the impugned order be modified. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and another [¼2009½6 SCC 280], and a Full Bench decision of Karnataka High Court Shivalinga Shivanagowda Patil and another etc. v. Erappa Basappa Bhavihala and etc. [2004 LAB.I.C. 286]. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and another [¼2009½6 SCC 280], and a Full Bench decision of Karnataka High Court Shivalinga Shivanagowda Patil and another etc. v. Erappa Basappa Bhavihala and etc. [2004 LAB.I.C. 286]. 6. Combating the aforesaid submissions, Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the right leg of the respondent has been amputated below the knee apart from the fracture which he sustained in his right hand, he cannot now discharge the work of ‘Fitter’ in the Mill owned by the appellant where he was serving for the last 13 years and, therefore, for him the disability would be 100%. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court S. Suresh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another [2010 (124) FLR 1]. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. The short question which is to be decided by this Court is whether on account of amputation of right leg, the respondent-workman has sustained 100% disability or the disability is upto 50% only. 9. Admittedly, the respondent-workman was serving on the post of ‘Fitter’ in the Dal Mill of employer-appellants for the last 13 years prior to the date of accident. But on account of amputation of his right leg on account of injury sustained by him arising out of and during the course of his employment it would be hazardous for him to serve the employer on the post of ‘Fitter’ and if he is permitted to discharge the said work, it would amount to put his life into danger because it would be highly unsafe for the respondent to serve on the post of ‘Fitter’ with one leg only. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case although the right leg of the respondent was amputated below the knee but it would amount to 100% disability since now he cannot discharge the work of ‘Fitter’. The factum of amputation of right leg below the knee has not been denied by the appellant. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case although the right leg of the respondent was amputated below the knee but it would amount to 100% disability since now he cannot discharge the work of ‘Fitter’. The factum of amputation of right leg below the knee has not been denied by the appellant. Further, the workman (respondent) sustained injuries in his right leg and right hand which arose out of and during the course of his employment, has been duly proved and this finding of Commissioner is not seriously challenged by the employer-appellants. Recently in the similar facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court in Mohan Soni v. Ram Avtar Tomar and others [ 2012(1) JLJ 217 (SC)=2012(3) MPLJ 3], wherein the left leg of Cart-puller was amputated below the knee, held that because now he cannot pull the Cart, the disability for him would be 100%. While arriving at such a finding, the apex Court relied upon its earlier decision Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another [¼2011½1 SCC 343]. The decision of Supreme Court in S. Suresh (supra), placed reliance by learned counsel for the respondent is also squarely applicable in the present case. 10. Thus, I am of the view that learned Commissioner under WC Act did not commit any error in holding that respondent-workman sustained 100% disability. The decision of Supreme Court Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (supra), placed reliance by learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable in the present case because it does not relate to amputation. Similarly, the Full Bench decision of Karnataka High Court Shivalinga Shivanagowda Patil (supra), is also not applicable in the present case for the same reason. 11. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs.2,000/-, if pre-certified.