JUDGMENT : Mohinder Pal, J. 1. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 8.1.2002 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Vadodara, in Workmen Compensation Case No. 80 of 1999 by which the learned Commissioner has allowed the application by awarding compensation of Rs. 1,95,684/-, the original respondent-employer has come in appeal. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the claimant Shantilal Chhotalal Patel was working in the press owned by the respondents. On 4.6.1999, an accident took place in which Shantilal Chhotalal Patel received injuries and ultimately, 4 fingers of the Shantilal Chhotalal Patel had to be chopped off. Ultimately, Shantilal Chhotalal Patel produced a certificate issued by private Doctor according to which, the disability was assessed to the tune of 16%. Learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation treated this disability as 100% and accordingly, awarded Rs. 1,95,684/-, against which the respondents have come in appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no reason to convert the disability from 16% to 100% and in absence of disability certificate, compensation of Rs. 1,95,684/- was on higher side and required to be interfered with. Learned counsel has also raised the point regarding penalty at the rate of 50% awarded in favour of the workman and in support of this argument, he has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George and others reported 2012 (3) GLH 344. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent-workman has submitted that after accident, the claimant has been terminated from his service and was not allowed to join back on his duty and ultimately, his services were terminated and under these circumstances, the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner was just and proper. On 6th October, 1999, he was not able to discharge the duties which he was discharging prior to the date of accident and submitted that award passed by learned Commissioner was just and proper. On 6th October, 1999, he was not able to discharge the duties which he was discharging prior to the date of accident and submitted that award passed by learned Commissioner was just and proper. Otherwise also, appeal was not required to be entertained in view of proviso of Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 which reads as under: "[Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against]". 5. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. Admittedly, Shantilal Patel was performing his duties at the time of accident and as a result of the accident, 4 fingers of his right hand got chopped off. It has also come on record that he has not been allowed to join the duty after accident as he could not perform the same duty which he was performing prior to the date of accident. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that disability assessed by the Workmen Commissioner to the tune of 100% is just and proper as the claimant could not perform the same duties which he was performing prior to the date of accident. This view is further supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sobata and another reported in AIR 1976 SC 222 ; wherein, Head Note (B) states as under: "(B) Workmen's Compensation Act (1923) S.2 and (g)-Total disablement- Personal injury to carpenter in the course of employment - Amputation of left hand above elbow - Since carpenter cannot work with one hand disablement is total and not partial". 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further raised the point regarding penalty which has been assessed at the rate of 50% and has relied upon the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George and others (supra). The proposition of law contained in this judgment cannot be disputed. However, each case has different facts. In the present case, a person has lost his four fingers of his hand and has been disabled for a rest of his life. Ltd. v. Siby George and others (supra). The proposition of law contained in this judgment cannot be disputed. However, each case has different facts. In the present case, a person has lost his four fingers of his hand and has been disabled for a rest of his life. He has not been allowed to join the duties after the accident on the ground that he could not perform his duties with efficiently what he was performing before the accident. Otherwise also, the penalty imposed by the Commissioner cannot be interfered with as the appellant failed to deposit the entire amount as per award passed by the Commissioner. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order regarding penalty. 8. This Court is convinced that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The remaining amount be deposited within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this award. Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.