Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. BALASUBRAMANIAN
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
Versus
T. PITCHAIMANI
C.M.A.147 Of 1989
Decided On : 17-12-1997
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT - WAGES - BATTA - WHETHER TO BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING WAGES - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2(L)(M) - SPECIAL EXPENSES ENTAILED ON WORKMAN BY NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the employer, challenged the award of compensation granted by the lower court to the respondent, the workman, under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The dispute arose over whether the "batta" paid to the workman, in addition to his monthly salary, should be included in calculating his "wages" for the purpose of determining compensation. The appellant contended that the "batta" should be excluded as it fell within the exclusion clauses of Section 2(l)(m) of the Act, while the respondent argued that it should be included as it was a privilege or benefit capable of being estimated in money.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the "batta" paid to the workman should be included in computing his "wages" for the purpose of determining compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court interpreted Section 2(l)(m) of the Act and found that the "batta" did not fall within any of the exclusion clauses. The court held that the "batta" was a privilege or benefit capable of being estimated in money and that it was not a travelling allowance, travelling concession, contribution towards pension or provident fund, or a sum paid to cover special expenses entailed on the workman by the nature of his employment.
Issues: 1. Whether the "batta" paid to the workman should be included in computing his "wages" for the purpose of determining compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 2(l)(m) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the "batta" paid to the workman was part and parcel of his "wages" and that he could claim it as a matter of right. The court found that the "batta" was not a special expense entailed on the workman by the nature of his employment, as it was not a reimbursement of expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by the workman for and on behalf of his employer. The court also held that the "batta" was not a travelling allowance or travelling concession, as there was no evidence to show that it was paid in lieu of such allowances or concessions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, upholding the award of compensation granted by the lower court to the respondent.
R. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.
( 1 ) THE appellant in this appeal is the second respondent in w. C. No, 69of 1987 on the file of the Deputy commissioner of Labour; Madurai. The first respondent in this
appeal is the petitioner and the second respondent in this appeal is the first respondent in the above referred to proceedings. By judgment dated 11. 11. 1988. in w. C, No. 69 of 1987, the Authority under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed an award in favour of the petitioner before it for a sum of Rs. 85. 428/- with a direction to deposit that money within a specified date, failing which the amount awarded would carry interest. The correctness of this award is questioned in this appeal by the second respondent before the lower Court.
( 2 ) I heard Mr. K. Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.
N. E. A Dhinesh learned, counsel appearing for the first respondent in the appeal. For the purpose of convenience, in this judgment the parties are referred to in the same rank in which they are described in the original proceedings before the lower Authority. The short and interesting point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in computing the wages of the petitioner, the sum representing the Batta paid to him should be taken into account or not. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the amount paid towards Batta shall not be taken into account in computing the "wages" while it is the contention, of the learned counsel for the first respondent that it should be taken into account. In the light of the submissions made by the Seamed counsel on either side on the point referred to above, I perused the order under challenge as well as the records including in evidence carefully.
( 3 ) A few facts touching upon the issue have to be necessarily stated to appreciate the point in controversy and they are as hereunder: in this application for compensation, the petitioner had stated as follows :-"the petitioner is a workman employed by opposite party No. 1; on 15. 2. 1987, he received personal injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment; The petitioner was working as a driver;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The monthly wages of the petitioner including the Batta was Rs. 800a. "the objection filed by the opposite party No. 1 is follows;"the salary paid to the petitioner is only Rs. 350/- the allegation as if the salary and the Batta paid to the appellants amount to Rs. 800/- is absolutely incorrect. The average earnings including the Batta must be proved by the applicant; the Batta has been paid whenever he was on duty. "the answer statement filed by the opposite party No. 2 disclosed the following :"the averments in the application regarding the age and the monthly "wages" of the applicant are all not admitted the averments regarding the monthly wages will have to be established by the
applicant and the Opposite Party No. 1 by producing the "wages records and vouchers. "
( 4 ) IN the context of the pleadings extracted above on the question of "wages" earned by the petitioner the petitioner has examined himself as P. W. 1 besides examining the doctor P. W. 2 who treated him for the injuries sustained. He had also marked Ex. A-1 the salary certificate. None was examined on the side of the opposite parties and no exhibits also were marked on their side. Hereunder I extract the relevant portion of the evidence of P. W. 1. "my monthly salary is Rs. 350/- Batta would be Rs. 500/-to Rs. 550; I had claimed an average of Rs. 800/-per month; the opposite party No. 1 had given me a certificate stating that I was drawing a sum of Rs. 850/-per month as salary. " (evidence in chief)
( 5 ) THE opposite party No. 1 had not cross-examined this witness at all. However the opposite party No. 2 had cross-examined this witness, and the relevant portion of the evidence in his cross examination is as hereunder :"there are two drivers for t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
