Actual wages exceeding statutory ceiling are compensable under Section 4(1) of Employees Compensation Act.

The respondent’s son, Satyajit Das, was a workman who died in a motor vehicle accident on October 19, 2019, while in the course of employment

The Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Kamrup, awarded the respondent Rs. 13,63,280/- plus 12% interest, calculating compensation based on a monthly wage of Rs. 12,000/- (comprised of base salary plus Rs. 100 daily allowance)

The Insurance Company appealed, contending that the statutory wage ceiling at the time of the accident was capped at Rs. 8,000/- per month as per a 2010 Central Government Notification and that daily allowances should not be included in "wages"

1. Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in considering the wage of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- per month when the statutory ceiling under the 2010 Notification was Rs. 8,000/-?

2. Whether daily allowances paid to a workman should be included in the definition of "wages" under Section 2(m) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923?

The court applied Section 4(1B) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, regarding the Central Government's power to specify monthly wages by notification

It interpreted the deletion of "Explanation II" to Section 4 by Act 45 of 2009, which previously imposed a mandatory "deeming" ceiling on wages

The court further applied the definition of "wages" under Section 2(m) of the Act, which includes any privilege or benefit estimatable in money, excluding only specific items like traveling allowances/concessions or special expenses entailed by the nature of employment

The court reasoned that since the legislature deleted the "deeming provision" (Explanation II) in 2009, the amounts specified by the Central Government under Section 4(1B) (such as the Rs. 8,000/- limit in the 2010 Notification) do not constitute an absolute upper ceiling if the claimant can prove higher actual earnings

It held that for social welfare legislation, actual wages must be considered unless the notification specifically states the amount is a "cap"

Regarding the daily allowance, the court observed that Section 2(m) only excludes "special expenses" and "traveling allowances." Since the appellant failed to prove that the daily allowance was intended for specific employment-related expenses, it fell within the broad definition of "wages" as a benefit estimatable in money

It held that the actual wage of Rs. 12,000/- was the correct basis for computation as the 2010 Notification did not serve as a restrictive ceiling post-2009 amendment

The appeal was dismissed, and the Insurance Company was directed to pay the outstanding compensation within four weeks