S. Talapatra, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.

Identical substantial questions of law have been projected in both the appeals. Apart that these appeals have emerged from the same accident which occurred on 22.8.2004. As such, the appeals are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment.

These appeals filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and award dated 30.8.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Tinsukia in W.C. Case No. 96 of 2004 and W.C. Case No. 95 of 2004.

2. At the time of admission no substantial question of law was formulated as required under section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. However, from the memorandum of appeal, it appears that the following substantial questions of law are involved in these appeals:

1. Whether the wages of the workmen would include the daily allowance, and

2. Whether the interest shall accrue from the date of the judgment and award @ 12% per annum or from the date when it fell due as per section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or whether there can be higher rate of interest beyond 12% per annum on the award.

3. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel submitted that by the impugned judgment and award, the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has included the daily allowance in the monthly wages and thereafter assessed the compensation. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel to buttress his argument further submitted that section 2(m) of the W.C. Act, 1923 had fallen for interpretation before this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakhimai Das and another, 2006 (3) GLT 870 where this Court has held as under:

12. It is clear from hereinabove that a sum of amount paid to a workmen to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment is not included in his "wages" for the purpose of the Act. From the nature of the employment of the deceased, we have no hesitation to hold that the daily allowances by the claimant in her deposition would not form a part of the wages as defined under the Act. On a moderate estimate, we may take that a daily allowance of Rs.20/- was paid to the deceased. Resultants an amount of Rs.600/- can be safely deducted from the amount quoted by the claimant to be the income of the deceased per month. According to us, therefore, the wages for the purpose of computing the compensation for the death of the deceased has to be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Commissioners had erred in law and on facts in proceeding on the basis that the monthly wages of the deceased at the relevant time was Rs.3,500/-.

4. Mr. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that as per section 4(A)(3)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the Commissioner can only direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due. Therefore, unless such notification is published, no higher rate of interest can be given by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation. Apart that, the interest @ 12% can only be given on the amount due meaning thereby from when the compensation is determined by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, not from a date anterior thereto.

5. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the submission of Mr. Sharma/learned Senior Counsel and has also critically examined the decision of Lakhimai Das (supra). In Lakhimai Das (supra), this High Court did not lay down any principle but has interpreted the provisions of law in the attendant circumstances of that particular case and held that a sum of amount paid to a workman to cover any special expenses