MFA 87/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the insurer/appellant and Mr. BK Jain, le arned counsel for the opposite party No. 1/claimant. The insurer/appellant is in appeal against the award dated 17.06.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Guwahati, passed in WC Case No .235/2002 ordering payment of an amount of Rs. 1,31,027/- along with interest as mentioned therein to the opposite party No. 1 for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident in course of his employment under the opposite party No . 2. It is submitted at the Bar that at the time of the admission of the appeal no su bstantial question of law, as required under section 30 of the Act, had been for mulated. With the consent of the parties, the same is framed hereinbelow:- i) Whether the daily allowance paid to a workman can be construed to be a part o f his monthly wage within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Act for the purpose of computation of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 ? Mr. Dutta has urged that the amount awarded is impermissible in law as in quanti fying the same the learned Commissioner had included the daily allowance of Rs. 80/- in computing the monthly wage of the opposite party No.1/claimant under sec tion 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Mr. Jain, however, has submitted that as at the relevant point of time, the oppo site party No. 1/claimant had a paltry monthly income of Rs. 600/-, this plea of the appellant ought not to be entertained. Mr. Dutta, however, has insisted that the proposition of law that daily allowanc e cannot be integrated with the monthly earning to compute the wage as has been laid by a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakhim ai Das & Anr., 2006 (3) GLT 870, is visibly not contingent on the ground as soug ht to be urged on behalf of the claimant. In other words, according to him, the exclusion of the daily allowance in the computation of the monthly wage of a wor kman entitled under the Act would not be dependent on the monthly salary otherwi se received by him at the time of the accident. This Court is inclined to sustain the plea raised on behalf of the appellant. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal apparently had fallen in error in calculating the amount of compensation by including the daily allowance of Rs. 80/- received by the opposite party No. 1/claimant in calculating his monthly wa ge. The awarded amount resultantly would stand diminished by the consequential r eduction in the monthly wage. At this stage, Mr. Jain has urged that having regard to the strata of the societ y to which the opposite party No.1/claimant belongs, the amount in difference be tween the sum deposited by the insurer/appellant in terms of the interim order p assed by this Court and the amount actually payable in terms of this determinati on may not be recovered. Mr. Dutta, has left this aspect of the matter to this C ourt to be decided in the attendant facts and circumstances. He has also submitt ed that meanwhile the awarded amount in full had been deposited with the office of the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Guwahati and that the opposit e party No. 1/ claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the same. He has appris ed this Court that following the deduction of the daily allowance, the amount aw arded would stand reduced to Rs. 27,000/- approximately. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, while allowing the appeal to t he extent indicated hereinabove, it is ordered, without creating a precedent tha t no recovery of the amount in excess of Rs. 27, 000/- be recovered from the opp osite party No. 1/claimant, if already withdrawn by him. Remaining 50% of the aw arded amount deposited by the insurer/appellant would be refunded to it together with interest thereon, if the same, meanwhile, has accrued on it. No costs.