Skip to content


Divisional Railway Manager Vs. M. Laxmi Bai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inII(1984)ACC108; 57(1984)CLT337
AppellantDivisional Railway Manager
RespondentM. Laxmi Bai
Excerpt:
- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. .....was not a workman as defined in the workmen's compensation act. it was alleged that the monthly wages of late m. appalaswamy was more than rs. 1000/-. thus it excludes him from the definition as given in the act. a calculation sheet indicating the average pay of m. appalasgwamy was submitted before the commissioner under the workmen's compensation apt in which it was stated that the average pay of the deceased was rs. 1020.04 p. the commissioner of workmen's compensation act after discussing all the points, that was urged before him, came to a conclusion that the deceased was employed on a monthly wages not exceeding rs. 1000/- and therefore, he was entitled to compensation claimed. the said order of the commissioner is impugned in this appeal.3. there is no dispute that the.....
Judgment:

P.C. Misra, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by the Divisional Railway Manager, S.E. Railway, Khurda Road against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner dated 24-4-1982 in WCC No.25/81.

2. An application was filed by the widow of late M. Appalaswamy, Driver G.C. praying for compensation on account of the death of her husband while on duty as an employee of Railway Administration. She claimed a compensation of Rs. 24000/- against the present appellant before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Railway Administration filed their reply to the notice issued in pursuance of the application under Compensation Act alleging that the deceased M. Appalaswamy was not a workman as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was alleged that the monthly wages of late M. Appalaswamy was more than Rs. 1000/-. Thus it excludes him from the definition as given in the Act. A calculation sheet indicating the average pay of M. Appalasgwamy was submitted before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Apt in which it was stated that the average pay of the deceased was Rs. 1020.04 p. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Act after discussing all the points, that was urged before him, came to a conclusion that the deceased was employed on a monthly wages not exceeding Rs. 1000/- and therefore, he was entitled to compensation claimed. The said order of the Commissioner is impugned in this appeal.

3. There is no dispute that the Railway servant earning less than Rs. 1000/- as monthly wages is a workman within the definition of the Act. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order has come to a conclusion that the basis on which the clothing allowance of Rs. 29.70 p. has been added to the average monthly emolument of the deceased does not find support from any actual calculation and therefore, the same should not be added to make up the monthly wages to exceed Rs. 1000/-. In the calculation sheet the monthly average emoluments of M. Appalaswamy has been calculated at Rs. 990.34 and adding a further sum of Rs. 29.70 on account of the value of concession from clothings which is calculated at the rate of Rs. 0.03 per rupee of the average monthly emoluments the total has come to Rs. 1020.04.

4. The, aforesaid view of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act appears to be justified. The word 'wages' has been defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Workmen's Compensation Act which reads as follows:

(m) 'wages' includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a workman towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment.

The Indian Railway Establishment Manual in Chapter XXXIII paragraph 3304 gives some guidelines for calculation of the wages of the workmen. One of the items in the said paragraph is the value of the clothingsif any supplied which according to the said paragraph is the value of the clothings if any supplied which according to the said paragraph should be taken into account while calculating the monthly wages of a workman. The method of caculation value of the clothings if any supplied to the employee has been given at Annexure A appended to that Chapter. The Manual itself indicates that the actual value of the clothings supplied should be calculated and not a percentage of the salary, has been done in the calculation sheet produced before the Commissioner. If this amount on the head of clothings is deducted from the total emolument of Rs. 1020.04 as calculated in the calculation sheet prepared by the Railway authorities the monthly wages of the deceased will be Rs. 990.34 i.e. less than Rs. 1000/- and therefore he comes under the definition of the 'workman' as given in the Act.

5. Mr. Dora appearing for the respondent submits that various other heads which have already taken into account in calculating the average pay of the deceased Appalaswamy should also be excluded. The learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act has taken into consideration as to whether those items should be added for the purpose of calculation of the average pay. I need not go into the said question inasmuch, as excluding the concession under the head of 'clothing the total emolument of the deceased husband of the respondent comes below Rs. 1000/-.

6. No other point has been urged in this appeal. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. The amount awarded as compensation which is in deposit before the Workmen's Commissioner may be released in favour of the respondent. There would be no order of costs of this appal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //