1976 PLP 314 (PLC)
ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, N: W. F. P., PESHAWAR Versus Mst. JAMSHED BEGUM
| Citation | 1976 PLP 314 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal N.-W. F. P. |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hakeem Khan, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, N: W. F. P., PESHAWAR Versus Mst. JAMSHED BEGUM |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 314 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 314 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal N.-W. F. P. bench comprising: Abdul Hakeem Khan, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 314 (PLC) (ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, N: W. F. P., PESHAWAR Versus Mst. JAMSHED BEGUM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Izzatullah Khan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923)
S. 2(m) read with employees Cost of living (Relief) Act, 1973 (1 of 1974), & 7-Expression wages lab S. 2(m), Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-Stands amended by S. 7 of Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973-Allowance of Rs. 85 p. m. allowed by Act of 1973, held, not part of wages for calculation of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Muhammad Lat f for Appellant. Izzatullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th November 1975. 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.