ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. T PITCHAIMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal is the second respondent in W.C. No, 69of 1987 on thefileof the Deputy Commissioner of Labour; Madurai. The first respondent in this appeal is the petitioner and the second respondent in this appeal is the first respondent in the above referred to proceedings. By judgment dated 11.11.1988. in W.C, No. 69 of 1987, the Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed an award in favour of the petitioner before it for a sum of Rs. 85.428/- with a direction to deposit that money within a specified date, failing which the amount awarded would carry interest. The correctness of this award is questioned in this appeal by the second respondent before the lower Court.

(2.) I heard Mr. K. Ranganathan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N.E.A Dhinesh learned, counsel appearing for the first respondent in the appeal. For the purpose of convenience, in this judgment the parties are referred to in the same rank in which they are described in the original proceedings before the lower Authority. The short and interesting point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in computing the 'wages' of the petitioner, the sum representing the Batta paid to him should be taken into account or not. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the amount paid towards Batta shall not be taken into account in computing the "wages" while it is the contention, of the learned counsel for the first respondent that it should be taken into account. In the light of the submissions made by the Seamed counsel on either side on the point referred to above, I perused the order under challenge as well as the records including in evidence carefully.

(3.) A few facts touching upon the issue have to be necessarily stated to appreciate the point in controversy and they are as hereunder: In this application for compensation, the petitioner had stated as follows :-