1977 PLP 514 (PLC)
ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD. N.‑W. F. P. Versus JAMSHED BEGUM
| Citation | 1977 PLP 514 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal N.‑W. F. P. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD. N.‑W. F. P. Versus JAMSHED BEGUM |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1977 PLP 514 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1977 PLP 514 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal N.‑W. F. P. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1977 PLP 514 (PLC) (ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD. N.‑W. F. P. Versus JAMSHED BEGUM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Latif for Appellant.
- Izzatullah Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Workmen's Compensation Act (VII of 1923) ‑--‑
S. 2(m) [as amended by Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act (I of 1973), S. 7]"Wages"‑Definition as amended‑Cost of living allowance‑Cannot be included in "wages" for award of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Judgment & Decree
Workmen's Compensation Act (VII of 1923) ‑--‑
S. 2(m) [as amended by Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act (I of 1973), S. 7]"Wages"‑Definition as amended‑Cost of living allowance‑Cannot be included in "wages" for award of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Muhammad Latif for Appellant. Izzatullah Khan for Respondent. 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. 1.3,500. The grievance of the appellant is that for the purposes of cal culation 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 o 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 lea 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 workers 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. I will not make any order as to costs, in the circumstan ces of the cave.