Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. RI‑8 of 1983, decided on 9th May, 1984.

‑‑S. 2 (m)‑"Wages" ‑ Mileage allowance allowed to Railway employee for traveling and running staff not traveling such allowance not given‑Not part of wages.

Ch. Muhammad Yousaf for Appellant.

Muhammad Akram for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 6th May, 1984.

The appeal captioned above arises from the decision dated 4th August, 1983 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Rawalpindi, awarding Rs. 6,300 to the respondent for the loss of the vision of his left eye.

2. It has been argued that the wages of the respondent were more than Rs. 1,000 p.m., therefore, he was not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2 In) and the learned Commissioner had no jurisdiction. The learned counsel wants to include mileage allowance in the pay but has failed to show that mileage allowance is part of wages. The term wages' is defined in section 2 (m) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Traveling allowance or value of any travelling concession is excluded. Mileage is allowed for travelling, so it is a travelling allowance. When a member of a running staff does not travel, no mileage allowance is given to him. It is thus clear that this allowance is not paid as a remuneration for the duty or work done by the employee. Excluding the mileage allowance the pay including local compensatory allowance of Rs. 13.94 and conveyance allowance of Rs. 20.65 the total comes to Rs. 577. The respondent was, therefore, rightly declared as a workman.

3. It has not been shown that the compensation of Rs. 6,300 is wrong or excessive.

4. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

A.E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.