Judgment :- 1. The applicant in W.C. No. 48 of 1986 (Madras) and W.C. No. 83 of 1987 (Salem) before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation-I, Madras, is the appellant in this appeal. The second respondent in this appeal is the opposite party in that proceedings. In this judgment the parties to this appeal are referred to in their rank as described in the W.C. case. 2. One Sathyan, the husband, of the applicant employed with the opposite party, died in an accident while he was in the employment of the opposite party. He sustained injuries to which he succumbed later Stating that he was age 30 years at the time of his death, an application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmen Compensation) claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,24,768/-. In the petition it is alleged that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. In evidence, the applicant stated that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 1,234/- per month as evidenced by Ex.44 (pay certificate). The opposite party contested the claim only on the ground of the quantum of wages. According to them, the deceased was drawing Rs. 904.60 per month as seen from Ex.R1. The Tribunal relied on Ex.R1, showing Rs. 904.60 as the monthly wages of the deceased and on that basis, fixing the age of the deceased as 30 years, arrived at a compensation of Rs. 75,255.50. Aggrieved over this order viz., on the question of wages fixed by the lower authority, the applicant has filed this appeal before this court. 3. Mr. R. Rajaram, learned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice the definition, of wages as defined under Section 2(1) (a) of the Act. The said definition is extracted below: “‘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 workmen towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment.” When R.W.1, who is an official in the Accounts Department of the section of the respondent Corporation was examined he would state that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 904.60 per month, i.e., basic Rs. 555/-; D.A.Rs. 255.30; CCA.Rs. 22.70 and H.R.A. Rs. 66.60. 904.60 per month, i.e., basic Rs. 555/-; D.A.Rs. 255.30; CCA.Rs. 22.70 and H.R.A. Rs. 66.60. He would also admit in the chief examination when the deceased goes on line, he would be paid line allowance and batta. In the cross examination he would admit that the line allowance and batta always varies from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- and Ex.R1 relied upon by them does not include line allowance and batta where as Ex.A4 includes apart from his salary, line allowance and batta. 4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the line allowance and the batta should be included in computing wages paid to the deceased or not. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to my notice a judgment of this court in United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vadivatha (1982 TAC 43). That case also arose under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act and the definition of the wages under Section 2(1) (m) of the Act came up for consideration. The deceased in that case was getting wages of Rs. 77/-besides Rs. 100/- to Rs. 120/- as batta. It was contended in that case that the sum paid as batta should be included in computing the quantum of wages received by the deceased. In that context a learned single Judge of this Court has laid down as follows: — “Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that under Section 2(1)(M), the definition of ‘Wages’ excludes travelling allowances or the value of any travelling concession and as the evidence of P.W.1 shows that the deceased was getting Rs. 77/- as wages besides Rs. 100/- to Rs. 120/- as batta, the batta paid to the deceased should be excluded in computing the quantum of wages received by the deceased and if so excluded, the compensation payable under the fourth Schedule would only come to Rs. 9,72 0/- and the award passed by the Commissioner should be reduced from Rs. 16,800/- to Rs. 9,720/-. No doubt, P.W.1 in her evidence has stated that her husband was receiving Rs. 77/- as wages besides Rs. 100/- as batta. There is no evidence to show that a sum of Rs. 100/- paid as batta was really paid in lieu of travelling allowance of it represents the value of any travelling concession. 16,800/- to Rs. 9,720/-. No doubt, P.W.1 in her evidence has stated that her husband was receiving Rs. 77/- as wages besides Rs. 100/- as batta. There is no evidence to show that a sum of Rs. 100/- paid as batta was really paid in lieu of travelling allowance of it represents the value of any travelling concession. In the absence of clear evidence to show that the batta paid to the deceased represents the travelling allowance or rep resents the value of any travelling concession, there is no justification for excluding from wages of the deceased the batta paid to him. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the batta paid should be excluded while computing the wages of the deceased cannot be accepted.” The learned counsel for the appellant also brought to my notice another judgment in K.S.R.T.C. Bangalore and another v. Sundari and another (1982 (1) Labour and Industrial Cases 230). K.S.R.T.C. who is the opposite party in this case, had suffered an order in that case at the hands of the two learned Judges of the Karnataka High Court, on the same question. That case also arose under the Workmens Compensation Act and Section 2(1)(m) came up for consideration. The Transport Corporation contended that the sum of Rs. 46/- paid towards line allowance and a sum of Rs. 50/- as night-out allowance shall not be taken into account while computing the wages. In that context, the learned Judges of the Karnataka High Court have decided as follows; “The learned counsel for the appellants contended that a sum of Rs. 46/- towards line allowance and a sum of Rs. 46/- paid towards line allowance and a sum of Rs. 50/- as night-out allowance shall not be taken into account while computing the wages. In that context, the learned Judges of the Karnataka High Court have decided as follows; “The learned counsel for the appellants contended that a sum of Rs. 46/- towards line allowance and a sum of Rs. 50/- towards night-out allowance, included by the Commissioner ought not to have been included in the wages payable to the deceased as they do not come under the definition of ‘wages’ under S. 2 (1) (m), Workmens Compensation Act, Section 2(1) (m) reads thus: “Wages includes any privillege 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 workmen towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment.” The learned counsel appearing for the owner submitted that the amounts are covered under the special expenses entailed on the workman by the nature of his employment. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the said wages include any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money. They being batta we are in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant. It has been held by this court that batta is included in the term of wages which in turn is privilege and benefit such as batta vide Sundattis. B. v. Biyamma reported in (1987) 2 Lab L.J. 130 (Mys). Further it is clear that the line allowance and night-out allowance would clearly come under the privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money and would not cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment. It is also held by this court that if there is any ambiguity the benefit of doubt should go to the workmen has held by this court in Hindustan Aeronautical Ltd. v. Bone John (1971) 1 Mys. L.J. 299). It is also held by this court that if there is any ambiguity the benefit of doubt should go to the workmen has held by this court in Hindustan Aeronautical Ltd. v. Bone John (1971) 1 Mys. L.J. 299). If that is so, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the owner and the Commissioner was justified in computing the compensation taking into consideration the line allowance and also the night out allowance as part of ‘wages’ which includes the privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money.” 6. It is seen in this case that there is no evidence to show that the line allowance and batta were really paid in lieu of travelling allowance or they represent any value of any travelling concession. 7. In these circumstances, in view of the judgment referred to above, brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to hold that the authority under the Act had erred in fixing the wages drawn by the deceased at the time of his death as Rs. 904.60. The evidence of R.W.1 shows that the line allowance varies from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- every month. Adding this sum to the wages of Rs. 904.60, it exceeds Rs. 1,000/- and as the Workmans Compensation Act fixes a ceiling in the monthly wages in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- that has been taken into account as his wages for arriving at the compensation payable. The age of the deceased was 30 years and the relevant factor 207.98. The learned counsel for the appellant gave me a schedule in which it is worked out as Table 8. For the reasons stated above, the order dated 27.9.1987 in W.C. No. 48/1986 (Madras) and W.C. No. 83/1987 (Salem), on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner of Workmens Compensation-I) is set aside, so far as the compensation payable is concerned. Instead, there shall be an order directing the opposite party to deposit a sum of Rs. 83,192/- before the lower court within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of any failure on the part of the opposite party to deposit the sum within the time granted, the said sum shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the expiry of the period granted in this order. 83,192/- before the lower court within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of any failure on the part of the opposite party to deposit the sum within the time granted, the said sum shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the expiry of the period granted in this order. Any amount already deposited by the opposite party, pursuant to the original order, as it stands till date shall be taken into account while arriving at the liability of the opposite party under the judgment of this court. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed on the lines indicated above. However, there is no order as to costs.