ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, N: W. F. P., PESHAWAR Versus Mst. JAMSHED BEGUM

The Road Transport Board, N.-W. F. P. Peshawar, has moved the present appeal as they feel aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, whereby the respondent, who is heir of Abdul Wadood a driver, who met a fatal accident was allowed a compensation of Rs. 13,500. The grievance of the appellant is that for the purposes of calculation of compensation the monthly salary of Rs. 196 should have been taken into consideration and that the added amount of Rs. 85 by way of cost of living allowance ought not to have been included so as to calculate the compensation. I have heard learned counsel on either side. It is true that the definition of the expression "wages" as contained in section 2(m) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 would include such privileges or benefits which are capable of being estimated in money, and that the added amount of Rs. 85 will answer that description. But the fact of the matter is that the Legislature in its wisdom has enacted Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, and the same is in force since 7th January .1974. Section 7 of this latter enactment clearly provides that notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force, which in this case will be Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the cost of living allowance shall not form part of wages of a worker for the purposes of such other law. It comes to this that the definition of "wages" as in the Workmen's Compensation Act, stands amended to that extent by section 7 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act 1973. It would follow that the learned Commissioner was not right when he took into consideration the additional amount of Rs.

85. The compensation should have been fixed at Rs. 10,000.

The appeal is accepted, and it is hereby ordered that the compensation shall be Rs. 10,000.1 will not make any order as to costs, in the circumstances of the case.