JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Respondent No.1 Dil Bahadur (for short “the workman”) sustained injuries during the course of his employment under respondent No.2 herein (for short “employer”). The injuries stood sustained by the workman on 28.4.2002 when he was performing work as a labourer on his standing engaged as such for the construction of road at Kuthiari Nallah whereat at about 1.00 p.m. stones accidentally fell on his person. The medical board concerned which stood constituted to assess the disability entailed upon the workman in sequel to his sustaining injuries on his person during the course of his employment under his employer has underscored in Ex.PW-1/A of 10% permanent disability of his right arm and right leg standing encumbered upon the workman. 2. Be that as it may since uncontrovertedly the workman was drawing wages quantified @ 2400/- per month from his employer, consequently the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation (for short “the Commissioner”) under his impugned award while applying the formula envisaged in Sub Section (b) of Section 4 computed a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation payable to the workman. The liability to defray to the workman the compensation as stood assessed in his favour by the Commissioner stood fastened upon the appellant herein on the score of the accident occurring during the currency of the insurance policy executed interse the employer with his insurer wherein the insurer stood enjoined to in the event of the workman suffering injuries, disability or death during the course of his employment under his employer/insured the liability of compensation as stands assessed by Courts of law being defrayable by the insurer, prodded it to fasten the liability qua the defraying of a sum of Rs.90,000 assessed by it as compensation in favour of the workman, upon the insurer. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents herein concede before this Court to not to make any espousal before it qua the fastening of liability by the Commissioner under the impugned award upon the insurer arrayed as respondent No.2 therein suffering from legal falsity. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents herein concede before this Court to not to make any espousal before it qua the fastening of liability by the Commissioner under the impugned award upon the insurer arrayed as respondent No.2 therein suffering from legal falsity. However, the short address made by the learned counsel for the appellant qua the infirmity gripping the impugned rendition of the commissioner stands harbored upon the factum of the latter misapplying the provisions of Section 4(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, which stand extracted hereinafter especially when the indispensable tenets for applying the formula envisaged therein for computing compensation qua the disabled workman stood constituted in the established factum of permanent/total disablement standing entailed upon the workman in sequel to injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment under his employer whereas with merely 10% disability standing entailed upon the workman, necessarily ousted its application. The aforesaid submission does not carry any weight, predominantly for the reason of given the nature of the avocation which the workman was performing under his employer in as much as of a manual labourer for efficient performance of work whereof the workable condition of his limbs is imperative, obviously even if a 10% permanent disability impairing besides permanently incapacitating the workability of his apposite limbs connected with the efficient performance of the callings of his avocation stood entailed upon him, imperatively rendered him wholly incapacitated to perform the callings of his avocations as a manual labourer. For an application of the clause aforesaid it is not to be read in the manner as espoused by the learned counsel for the appellant, its reading besides interpretation has to be purposive in as much as it being open to a construction in entwinement with the disability incurred by the workman disability whereof impinges upon besides has a cascading telling effect upon the performance by him of the callings of his avocations. As a result, in proceeding to conjointly besides conjunctively read the entailment of a 10% permanent disability qua his apposite limbs connected with the efficient performance of the callings of his avocation vis-à-vis theirs rendering him perennially incapacitated to perform the callings of his avocations, no conclusion other than of even the minimal permanent disability of 10% of the apposite limbs connected with the efficient performance of the callings of his avocations rendering him permanently disabled to perform them, stands aroused. As a corollary if even the percentum of besides the nature of the disability entailed upon the workman was not 100% yet when on a literal reading of and a strict construction being lent to the apposite provisions would defeat besides oust the salutary object underlying the relevant provisions, of compensation being assessable to a workman in the percentum engrafted therein not only if the disability incurred by a disabled person is not stricto sensu up to 100% rather the apt provisions standing evoked even if a disability in a percentum less than 100% stands entailed upon him, if it permanently impairs besides incapacitates the workability of his apposite limbs connected with the performance by him of the callings of his avocations, impairment whereof hence precludes him to also earn any livelihood from the callings of his avocations. The aforesaid manner of reading of the aforesaid provision would rather foment a conclusion of hence even a 10% perennial disability being construable to be 100% disability vis-à-vis the deterrence to the workman to perform the callings of his avocations. (b) where permanent total disablement results from the injury. An amount equal to (sixty per cent) of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of [ninety thousand rupees] whichever is more; In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is maintained and affirmed.