JUDGMENT : Judgment and award dated 09.04.2008 passed by WC Commissioner Golaghat, Assam in WC Case No. 18/2005 has been called in question in the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now designated as Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923). 2. One Surendra Baruah filed a petition before the WC Commissioner stating that while in service under the present appellant M/s. Saikia & Sons, Golaghat sustained injury and as a result his left leg had to be amputed above knee. Consequently, he became permanently disabled and lost his total earning capacity. According to him on 20.09.2003 at about 1 p.m. while he was doing maintenance of streetlight at Numaligarh Refinery Limited Township, he sustained the injury and was immediately admitted to Golaghat Nursing Home from where he was taken to Down Town Hospital at Guwahati. He remained at the Hospital at where his leg was amputed above knee. In the process an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was spent. Although he was released from the hospital later on his employer terminated him from job due to his disability. According to him he received monthly salary to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- per month at that time. 3. On receipt of summons, the opposite-parties of the proceeding appeared and submitted their written statement. The opposite-party No. 1, 2 & 3 did not appear and so the proceeding was held ex-parte against them. The employer Opposite Party No. 4 & 5 contested the case by filing written statement and denied the averment made in the claim petition. It is the case of the Opposite Party No. 5 that a sum of Rs. 95,000/- was paid to the workman on humanitarian ground. On the basis of the pleadings referred to above, the WC Commissioner framed as many as 4 issues which are quoted below: 1. Whether the claim-petition is maintainable in law? 2. Whether, the claimant was workman? If so, whether, he sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment? 3. Whether, the claimant is entitled to get compensation if so, what is the quantum and from whom? 4. Whether, the claimant is entitled to get interest and penalty? 4. The claimant examined himself and produced documents to show that he was engaged under the Opposite Party Nos. 4 & 5, that he suffered injury and that there was amputation of his leg. 4. Whether, the claimant is entitled to get interest and penalty? 4. The claimant examined himself and produced documents to show that he was engaged under the Opposite Party Nos. 4 & 5, that he suffered injury and that there was amputation of his leg. Upon such evidence being led the WC Commissioner arrived at the finding that the workman was engaged by the opposite-party Nos. 4 & 5 and that he sustained injury in course of his employment resulting in amputation in his left leg above the knee. The workmen became permanently disabled thereby and so the compensation was assessed at Rs. 4,94,280/- considering Rs. 4,000 as the monthly income and 31 years of age. 5. It is this judgment which has been brought under challenge in the present appeal. This Court while admitting the appeal on 23.05.2008 framed the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation can award the compensation under Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 by taking the monthly wage of the workman as Rs. 4,000/- when the workman himself in his evidence has stated that his monthly salary is Rs. 2,490/-?” 6. I have heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents including the claimant. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel argues that in the claim petition, the workmen did not disclose his income but while making deposition he stated in course of examination-in-chief that his monthly salary was Rs. 2,490/-. Apart from this the claimant did not examine any other witness and did not produce any other paper to show that he was drawing Rs. 4,000/- or more per month. But the learned WC Commissioner considering Explanation-II of Section 4(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 the learned Commissioner presumed monthly wage of the workman to be Rs. 4,000/-. This according to Mr. Sarma is erroneous inasmuch as presuming monthly wage at Rs. 4,000/- would have arisen at that period of time only if the actual monthly wage was Rs. 4,000/- or more than Rs. 4,000/-. 8. I have perused the examination-in-chief of the PW1 claimant and found that the workman made a categorical statement before the WC Commissioner that his monthly salary was Rs. 2,490/- only. 9. 4,000/- would have arisen at that period of time only if the actual monthly wage was Rs. 4,000/- or more than Rs. 4,000/-. 8. I have perused the examination-in-chief of the PW1 claimant and found that the workman made a categorical statement before the WC Commissioner that his monthly salary was Rs. 2,490/- only. 9. The accident had taken place on 20.09.2003 and at that time there was an Explanation-II under Section 4(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This explanation provided that where the monthly wage of a workman exceeded Rs. 4,000/- his monthly wage for the purpose of claim under Clause (b) shall be deemed to be Rs. 4,000/- only. Rs. 4,000/- was substituted for Rs. 2,000/- by amendment w.e.f. 08.12.2000 only. The accident had taken place on 20.09.2003, so at that time, if the monthly wage of the Workman exceeded Rs. 4,000/- then and then only the WC Commissioner ought to have been deemed the same to be Rs. 4,000/-. But in case the income was not Rs. 4,000/- or above there was no question of deeming the monthly wage to be Rs. 4,000/-. The actual income should have been taken by WC Commissioner for computing the agreement amount. Explanation-II of Section 4(1) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 does not prescribe that whether or not the income was Rs. 4,000/-, the monthly wage shall be deemed to be Rs. 4,000/-. The provision is specific and it only provided the maximum limit of the monthly wage of a workman. It did not provide for a monthly wage to a fixed amount. The consequent interpretation is that if the income is less than Rs. 4,000/- after 08.12.2000 in that event the WC Commissioner is to consider the actual income only and not Rs. 4,000/-. Once such a calculation is made in that event the amount of compensation shall also automatically come down. The calculation of compensation, therefore, would be as follows: Rs. 2,490 X 60% X 31 years. Factor for 31 years being 205.95, the amount will be Rs. 2,490/- X 60% X 205.95 = Rs. 3,07,689.30. 10. The learned senior counsel submits that at the time of admission hearing this Court passed an interim order in Misc. Case No. 1529/2008. This Court directed the WC Commissioner to release Rs. 3,10,000/- to the concerned workman. In that view of the matter the workman has already received his due. 2,490/- X 60% X 205.95 = Rs. 3,07,689.30. 10. The learned senior counsel submits that at the time of admission hearing this Court passed an interim order in Misc. Case No. 1529/2008. This Court directed the WC Commissioner to release Rs. 3,10,000/- to the concerned workman. In that view of the matter the workman has already received his due. The balance amount lying with the WC Commissioner shall be released to the appellant. 11. The appeal stands allowed. 13. No order as to costs.