DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Central Division, Karachi, dated 26-12-1987, whereby the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs,3,150 plus Rs,50 as cost for the injury sustained by the respondent in an accident on 8-7-1981.
2. Heard Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. SA. Channa, counsel for the respondent.
3. Facts of the case are not disputed and the quantum of amount awarded is not disputed. Only two points have been raised by Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed.
' Firstly it is contended that the respondent was not workman as defined in the Workmen's Compensation Act, and, therefore, he could not claim compensation under the same Act.
Secondly, it is submitted that the claim filed by respondent before the learned Commissioner was time-barred.
4. The 'workman' is defined under section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which reads as under:- "(n) 'workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business) who is- (i)
(ii)employed on monthly wages not exceeding one thousand five hundred rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II."
' It may be pointed out that at the relevant time the amount of wages in sub-clause (ii) was rupees one thousand which was substituted by rupees one thousand five hundred under Act VI of 1987.
5. "Wages" have also been defined in the said subsection as under:- "(m) `wages' includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a workman towards any pension or a provident fund or a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment."
' It is admitted fact that at the relevant time the total emoluments received by the respondent were Rs,1,470 out of which his basic salary was Rs,745.20. The remaining amount pertained to the payments made by way of cost of living allowance, house rent, conveyance allowance, overtime, special allowance, washing allowance, medical treatment allowance, incentive etc. Under proviso to section 7 of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, this Cost of Living Allowance would not form part of the wages of a worker for the purpose of Workmen's Compensation Act. This amount would have to be excluded from the wages as defined in sub-clause (n). Similarly Travelling Allowance is also excluded as specifically provided in the definition of wages. The learned Commissioner relied upon the decision of this Tribunal reported in 1975 PLC 708. Reliance is also placed on 1975 PLC 708 wherein this Tribunal had excluded the various allowances and awarded compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act on the basis of basic salary only, which was held to constitutes wages for the purpose of assessment of compensation. Similar view was taken in the cases reported in 1975 PLC 602 and 1975 PLC 708, which is pointed above and relied upon by the learned Commissioner. This appears to be the consistent view of this Tribunal and no case-law to the contrary has been cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. I find nothing to disagree with the view of learned Predecessor. As pointed above if the other allowances are excluded the basic salary of the respondent was admittedly less than rupees one thousand.
6. With respect to the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants admittedly the claim was barred by more than 13 months but the learned Commissioner condoned this delay under proviso to subsection 1(b) of section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which provides that "the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has not been preferred in due time as provided in this subsection, if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause." The learned Commissioner has accepted the contention of the respondent that he did not prefer claim within time because after recovery he was taken up in the job and was told that as his salary was more than one thousand rupees he could not claim compensation. No doubt, ignorance of law cannot be considered as justifiable excuse but in the instant case it was not mere ignorance of law but the question was of interpretation of law as to the definition of wages which an ordinary worker cannot be expected to know. The purpose of the Labour Laws is to safeguard the rights and the welfare of the workmen and it will be in the spirit of such law to interpret the law in favour of the workman, especially in exercise of the discretion vested in the 'Authority'. In this case the Authority has exercised it in favour of the respondent by accepting his contention to be sufficient cause of the delay. The Law of Limitation is not applicable to the cases under the Act and the case law with regard to the interpretation of clause `sufficient cause' used in section 5 would not, in my opinion, be strictly applicable in the instant case.
7. The amount involved is petty amount of only Rs,3,200 and I am not inclined to disturb the order of the learned Commissioner, under the circumstances of this case. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.