JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Both the petitions are taken up together as they arise from a common award. 2. FAO No. 10 of 2007 stands instituted by appellant herein (for short “employer”), wherein the award of the Commissioner under the Workmen’s compensation Act (for short “Commissioner”) stands assailed on the grounds delineated therein. 3. FAO No. 240 of 2007 stands instituted at the instance of the appellant herein (for short “workman”) claiming therein the relief of compensation awarded in his favour by the Commissioner under the impugned award being enhanced. 4. The workman sustained injuries on 9.4.2002 at Jouri Nalah during the course of his employment under the employer whereupon 25% disability in relation to dorsolumber spine stood entailed upon him. The manner of accrual of injuries on his person as delineated in the petition preferred by the workman before the Commissioner is of his at about 3 p.m. on his climbing a pole to join the cable with the aid of other workmen, the cable suddenly loosening constraining him to loose his balance seqeulling his falling on the ground with the concomitant effect of his standing afflicted with injuries on his back and arms. He was taken by Shri Mushu Ram and Himat Ram for treatment to CH, Sunni wherefrom he stood referred for treatment to IGMC, Shimla. He remained admitted as an indoor patient in IGMC, Shimla w.e.f 10.4.2002 to 13.6.2002. Ex. PW-1/A is reflective of a disability of 25% standing enjoined upon the workman. Police report lodged qua the occurrence stands comprised in Ex.PW-1/C. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the employer has concerted of given the reflections in Ex.RW-1/A furnished by the workman before his employer at the time of his standing regularized in his hitherto daily waged capacity he rendered work under his employer qua his standing declared therein to be fully fit, reflections whereto stand espoused by the learned counsel for the employer to benumb the revelations constituted in Ex.PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/A-1 issued subsequent to the issuance of the former with a concomitant effect of its ingraining the impugned rendition of the Commissioner with a palpable infirmity. PW-1/A-1 issued subsequent to the issuance of the former with a concomitant effect of its ingraining the impugned rendition of the Commissioner with a palpable infirmity. For reiteration the learned counsel for the appellants contends of hence with Annexure PW-1/A standing bereft of tenacity the sequelling effect thereof is of the factum of injuries sustained by the workman in an accident which purportedly occurred during the course of his employment under it standing belied thereupon it is canvassed before this Court by the learned counsel for the employer of the workman standing disentitled to enforce the award against it. 6. However, the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the employer stands enfeebled in the face of – (a) RW-1 in his deposition vividly underlining therein in corroboration to the deposition of PW-1 of the latter during the course of his employment under his employer on 9.4.2000 sustaining injuries arising from his accidentally suffering a fall from a pole. Moreover with his conveying therein of the workman obtaining treatment as an indoor patient w.e.f 10.4.2002 to 13.6.2002 from IGMC, Shimla for correcting/curing the injuries does give leverage to the espousal of the workman of his suffering injuries arising from his accidentally suffering a fall from a pole during the course of his employment under his employer; (b) with RW-1 underscoring in his deposition comprised in his cross-examination qua the fitness certificate comprised in Ex.RW-1/A whereupon the workman obtained the benefit of regularization in his hitherto daily waged capacity standing issued as a matter of routine and of despite the entailment of any disability upon any workman staking a claim to the benefit of regularisation in service, the employer yet proceeding to afford to the workman the apposite staked benefit, is communicative of the effect if any of the reflections in Ex.RW-1/A of the workman standing therein declared fit to perform his duties, stood merely issued as a matter of routine and of when despite existence of disability enjoined upon the workman herein the employer proceeding to alike other workman entailed with a disability where to whom the benefit of regularization in their hitherto daily waged capacity stood afforded its standing constrained to also afford to the workman herein the akin benefit of regularization in service, holding no sway, with a concomitant sequel of the employer not holding any leverage to discount the probative vigor of Ex.PW-1/A and PW-1/A-1 especially when he further echoed in his deposition of the competence to assess disability standing solitarily enjoyed by the medical board concerned and of the apposite disability certificate issued by the Medical Board concerned on examining the disability entailed upon the workman in sequel to injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment under his employer alone holding evidentiary value besides acceptable to the employer does rather render the disability certificates Ex. PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/A-1 issued by the duly constituted medical boards with portrayals therein of the disability of the quantum and nature as reflected therein standing enjoined upon the workman, to overwhelm the effect if any of RW-1/A which for the reasons aforestated standing not issued by a duly constituted medical board rather standing issued in a routine manner, moreso when the Doctor who issued it did not ascertain the disability entailed upon the person of the workman hence also not constituting the best evidence in ouster of portrayals in Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/A-1. Even otherwise when RW-1 communicates the factum of the workman sustaining injuries in an accidental fall during the course of his employment under the employer, the disability entailed upon him in sequel thereto as reflected in the disability certificates aforesaid is construable to be holding a nexus with the uncontroverted injuries suffered by him in an accidental fall which fall occurred during the course of his employment under his employer unless evidence stood adduced on record apart from RW-1/A whose probative vigor for the reasons aforestated stands denuded of its legal worth, in portrayal of the disability certificates with markings therein of disability of the percentum and nature disclosed therein, being a sequel to not the workman suffering in accidental fall during the course of his employment under the employer rather theirs standing begotten in a manner other than the one disclosed in the deposition of the workman and corroborated by RW-1. With the aforesaid evidence being amiss, the reflections in the disability certificates Ex.PW-1/A and PW-1/A-1 cannot suffer any effacement nor it can be concluded of the disability entailed upon the workman as stands displayed therein being a sequel to his not suffering injuries in an accidental fall during the course of his employment under the employer. 7. The learned counsel for the workman submits with force of the Commissioner not assessing reasonable compensation in favour of the workman especially when he stood incapacitated to earn for his livelihood. However, the above submission is not acceptable to this Court in the face of the workman standing regularized by the employer in his hitherto daily waged capacity which evident factum of his standing hence regularized by his employer he obviously rears an income therefrom. However, the above submission is not acceptable to this Court in the face of the workman standing regularized by the employer in his hitherto daily waged capacity which evident factum of his standing hence regularized by his employer he obviously rears an income therefrom. Even though the learned counsel for the workman contends with force of the workman though enjoying earnings from selling his agricultural and horticultural produce yet the percentum of besides the nature and quantum of disability enjoined upon him, hence precludes him to either continue his horticultural and agricultural operations besides disables him to earn any income therefrom, as such he claims compensation for loss of earnings from selling of horticulture and agriculture produce. However, with no proof standing adduced in portrayal of the workman prior to the accident holding any income from his agricultural and horticultural produce, this Court is constrained to not order for his standing monetarily recompensed by his employer for any loss in regard thereof standing incurred by the workman in sequel to his standing enjoined with a disability as stands reflected in the disability certificates. 8. Moreover the learned counsel for the workman contends for on the facet of the disability entailed upon him quantification of compensation for perennial loss of enjoyment of life, nonetheless the said submission falls apart in the face of Sub Section © of Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”) which stands extracted hereinafter purveying the statutory mode warranting its standing strictly complied with by the Commissioner while assessing or adjudging compensation in a petition constituted before him by a disabled workman under the apt provisions thereof hence imperatively enjoining the Commissioner to only within the ambit and gamut of the statutory provisions aforesaid assess compensation in favour of the disabled workman. Contrarily he stood statutorily interdicted to beyond the grounds encapsulated therein assess compensation in favour of the disabled workman. An apt sequel to the aforesaid provisions of the Act excluding the assessment of compensation by the Commissioner qua a disabled workman on the facet of or score of temporary or perennial loss of enjoyment of life or for pain and suffering rather obviously statutorily estopped the Commissioner to assess compensation qua the disabled person on score of loss of enjoyment of life or pain or suffering. In aftermath, his assessing compensation within the ambit of the statutory mode contemplated therein besides his omitting to assess compensation as claimed by the disabled workman on the score of loss of enjoyment of life or pain and suffering temporary or perennial does not constitute any gross illegality or impropriety. In view of the above, both the appeals stand dismissed and the impugned award is maintained and affirmed. “(c) Where permanent partial disablement result from the injury (i) in the case of an injury specified in part II of Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in case of permanent total disablement as its case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury; and (ii) In the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury;” In view of above, the appeals stand dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.