JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.1.2015 rendered by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi in E.C. No. 8 of 2013. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as the “workman”) was employed as labourer in the MGNREGA in the Gram Panchayat, Bahwa, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi by the appellants. On 12.6.2009 at about 3.00 P.M. at village Kalai, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, respondent was working as a labourer on the road. It was being constructed by the appellants. All of a sudden, heavy stone and debris fell down upon the respondent. She sustained injuries in her left leg and other parts of the body. She was taken to CHC, Gohar, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi. She was given medical aid and thereafter was referred to Zonal Hospital, Mandi. She remained under treatment in Zonal Hospital, Mandi for about 16 days. Thereafter, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. She remained under treatment in PGI, Chandigarh for 28 days. She was operated upon. She was again admitted in the Zonal Hospital, Mandi and remained under treatment for about three months. Iron plates were inserted in the left leg of the respondent and she was also advised for periodical check up for her injuries. She has spent Rs. 70,000/- for her treatment. She used to get Rs. 3,000/- per month as wages from the appellants. She was 55 years old at the time of accident. Notice was served upon the appellants. However, the matter was not settled. It is in these circumstances petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs. ten lakhs. 3. The petition was contested by the appellants. According to them, MGNREGA scheme only provides for 100 days guarantee wages employment. She was not entitled to any compensation. She has already been paid a sum of Rs. 35,444/- for medicine. 4. Issues were framed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation on 15.11.2011. He awarded compensation of Rs. 4,02,613.2 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date it fell due till its realization. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. She was not entitled to any compensation. She has already been paid a sum of Rs. 35,444/- for medicine. 4. Issues were framed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation on 15.11.2011. He awarded compensation of Rs. 4,02,613.2 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date it fell due till its realization. Hence, the present petition. 5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the petition was not maintainable before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation in view of various provisions of MGNREGA scheme, more particularly, notification dated 9.11.2010. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation has misread oral as well as documentary evidence. She was only entitled to compensation for medical expenses. 6. I have heard Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. A.G. and have gone through the judgment carefully. 7. PW-1 Thakri Devi has testified that she was posted as Secretary in Gram Panchayat Bahwa since July, 2012. According to the record, respondent was working as labourer in MGNREGA on 12.6.2009. She has worked for half day on 13.6.2009 and on 14.6.2009 and 15.6.2009 as well. She was being paid Rs. 110/- as wages per day. 8. PW-2 Ghaneshru Devi has deposed that she and Jethi were working in the MGNREGA at Kalai for the construction of road. When they were doing work on the spot, one stone fell down which struck with the left leg of Jethi Devi. She sustained injuries. They used to get Rs. 100/- per day as wages. She has admitted that Jethi had received Rs. 35,444/- on behalf of the Department. 9. Respondent Jethi Devi appeared as PW-3. She led her evidence by filing affidavit Ex.PW-3/A. She has supported the averments made in the claim petition. She has admitted that Rs. 35,444/- was received by her. 10. PW-4 Dr. Parveen Thakur has deposed that he was one of the members of the Medical Board formed for the issuance of disability certificate in favour of the respondent. According to him, respondent has sustained 40% permanent disability. The disability certificate is Ex.PW-4/A. 11. DW-1 Ravinder Kumar has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex.DW-1/A. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that respondent was working as a labourer under their Department. Volunteered that she was working in MGNREGA. He has also admitted that after accident, respondent remained admitted in the hospital. The disability certificate is Ex.PW-4/A. 11. DW-1 Ravinder Kumar has led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex.DW-1/A. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that respondent was working as a labourer under their Department. Volunteered that she was working in MGNREGA. He has also admitted that after accident, respondent remained admitted in the hospital. Volunteered that the Department has paid the bills of the medicine produced by her. He also admitted that no compensation was paid to the respondent. As per notification of the Central Government, if MGNREGA worker sustains injuries while working, in that case, expenses of medicines was to be paid by the Government and in case of death of person, Rs. 25,000/- was to be paid. The notification dated 9.11.2010 did not debar the workman to file claim petition under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. 12. It is not in dispute that respondent has received injury on her leg while working with the appellants. The disability was assessed at 40%. The respondent was an employee as per Schedule 2 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The respondent was employee since she was engaged in the construction/maintenance/ repair of the road. She was working on 12.6.2009 for the construction of road in village Kalai. The respondent has the necessary locus standi to file the petition before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation as per the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The provisions of MGNREGA did not debar the respondent to file claim petition before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation. She has only been paid ex-gratia payment of Rs. 35,444/- for buying medicine. Fact of the matter is that she has received injury and has become 40% permanent disable. Medical certificate Ex.PW-4/A has duly been proved by PW-4 Dr. Parveen Thakur. Monthly income of the respondent has rightly been assessed and correct factor has been applied while awarding a sum of Rs. 4,02,613.2 as compensation to the respondent. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment rendered by him. 13. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. CMP No. 2429/2016 14. In view of the dismissal of FAO No.149/2016, this application is also dismissed.