AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nishitendu Chaudhury, J—This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act has arisen from a judgment and order dated 11.08.2003 passed by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, Cachar, at Silchar in WC Case No. 32 of 2001. The point of objection raised in this appeal was that the sum of Rs. 80 which was being paid to the workman as special allowance was wrongly calculated as part of the monthly wage of the workman. Accordingly, the following substantial question of law was framed and the appeal was admitted and the records were called for:
"Whether the special allowance paid to a workman by the nature of his employment can be included in his total wages to determine total salary for the purpose of assessment of compensation under Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923?"
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Agarwala, learned counsel assisted by Ms. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents.
Both the learned counsel jointly submitted that the substantial question of law framed by this Court on 26.03.2007 is no longer res integra. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Mohd. Ameeruddin and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2011) ACJ 13 : (2011) 162 PLR 453 : (2011) 1 RCR(Rent) 903 : (2011) 1 SCC(Cri) 862 that allowance given to a workman is also a wage for the purpose of computing income under Motor Vehicles Act. The judgment referred to above is perused. It is clear that the point is no longer res integra. So, the sole substantial question of law does not require any consideration. It is covered by the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ameeruddin (Supra), the appeal is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly closed. No order as to costs.