JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the order dated 19-12-1974 of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Multan awarding compensation of Rs. 8,000 to Muhammad Iqbal respondent United Carriage Co. v. Muhammad Iqbal (M. Jamil Asghar, Appellate Tribunal)
2. Faiz Bakhsh deceased was employed as a cleaner in the United Carriage Company, Multan. On 17-4- 1972 he died as a result of an accident. Muhammad Iqbal respondent, who is the son of Faiz Bakhsh deceased, filed an application before the learned Commissioner for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000. He claimed that the deceased at the time of the accident was drawing a salary of Rs 200 p.m. The learned Commissioner gave a finding that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 102.60 p.m. and awarded compensation as already mentioned above.
3. Aggrieved by the above order the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions: (1) that Faiz Bakhsh deceased at the time of his death was drawing salary of Rs. 78 p.m. ; (2) that on 17-4-1972 Old Schedule IV under section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, was in force, according to which the compensation in case of death came to Rs. 3,203 only, as the monthly wages of Faiz Bakhsh deceased were Rs. 78. 5.
Subsection (m) of section 2 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act reads as follows: "Wages include 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 to 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."
6. From the documents on the record it is established that in March, 1972 Faiz Bakhsh was paid a sum of Rs.
102.60, the break up of which was paid salary Rs. 78 and trip allowance Rs. 24.60. Trip allowance is only paid when a trip is made and not otherwise. In other words it is a travelling allowance.
According to the above definition the travelling allowance is not included in the wages. Therefore, in my view, the learned Commissioner was wrong in including trip allowance of Rs. 24.60 in his wages. I, therefore, hold that the deceased was drawing only Rs. 78 p.m. as his wages at the time of the accident.
7. Now the point for determination is as to whether the old Schedule IV of Workmen's Compensation Act is applicable in this case. According to Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, which came into force on 12-10-1972 Schedule IV was amended and the compensation was enhanced. In the present case the deceased died on 14-4-1972 as a result of an accident It is a well established principle that every law is applicable prospectively andig not retrospectively, unless it is specifically provided otherwise. In the present case when the said amendment was made, it was nowhere provided that the said amendment would have retrospective effect The learned Commissioner granted compensation according to the revised Schedule IV, because the respondent had filed a claim on 17-2-1973 when the said Schedule was in force. This view is not correct because the relevant date is the date! of the accident when the cause of action accrued. I am fortified in thisp view by the judgment of the Dacca High Court in the case, Messrs Kohinoor Mercantile Corporation v. Hazera Kliatoon and another (1) wherein it was held that in the absence of a different intention appearing from the said (1) PLD 1963 Dacca 238 Act revised Schedule' IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act was not retrospective in opeiation so as to affect the right accrued and the liability incurred before the repeal and replacement of any original Schedule IV to the Act. Their Lordships awarded compensation under the old Schedule. I am further fortified in my view by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case, Adnan Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal (I) wherein it was held: "that if the matter in question be a matter of procedure only, the provisions would be retrospective. On the other hand, if it be more than a matter of procedure, if it touches a right in existence at the passing of the Act, then in accordance with a long line of authorities extending from the time of Lord Coke to the present day, the legislation would not operate retrospectively, unless the Legislature had either by express enactment or by necessary intendmeQt given the legislation retrospective effect."
8. The rulings relied upon by the learned Commissioner have no application as they pertained to the procedural law.
9. In the result I accept the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner and award compensation of Rs. 3,200 to respondent under the old Schedule, calculated on the basis of the wages of the deceased at Rs. 78 p.m. No order as to costs. (1) PLD 1969 SC 187