1. Since the two appeals involve identical disputes, they arc disposed of by this common judgment which shall govern each of them.
2. The only point raised by Oriental General Insurance Company, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the insurer) is whether wages as defined in S. 2(l)(m) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the Act) includes flooding allowance (commonly known as bhatia). There was cleavage of opinion on this question, as learned Judges of this Court were not unanimous in then view in this regard. In Sri Gopal Singh… v. Sri Nilamani Pradhan…. [1987 (63) Cul. L.T 625], National Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Y. Ramadevi [1989 A.C.J 980], it was held that “bhatia” is not include in the expression of wages. In Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway v. M. Laxmi Bai [1984 A.C.J 545], clotting allowance was held to be a part of wages. In Gopal Singh and Ramadevi cases (vide supra), learned Judges did not regard “bhatia” as a part of wages being of the view that the same wages being paid to cover special expenditure incurred by workman by nature of his employment and, therefore, such allowance gels excluded for the purpose of determination of wages.
3. Definition of wages as given in S. 2(l)(m) of the Act reads as follows:
“Wages includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in month other than a T.A or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a workman 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.”
“Batta” and “bhatia” are commonly understood differently., “Batta” is travelling allowance; whereas “bhatia” is fooding allowance. Daily payment of bhatia may be made to facilitate an employee to meet his daily needs. Bhatia takes characteristics of an expenditure of food which is a daily requirement. It cannot be held that bhalia would not be wages and there is nothing to show bhatia was being paid on account of special expenses payable to the workman by nature of his employment. Payment of food allowance has nothing special in it, as it is an ordinary requirement. In Ouseph Mathai v. Mathew [1981 A.C.J 8] (Ker) and United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vadivatha [1982 T.A.C 43], batta was held to be a part of wages because there was no evidence to show that payment was made in lieu of travelling allowance or represented the value of any travelling expenses. This shows that “batta” is Connected with expenditure incurred in travelling. In Ouseph (vide supra), it was observed that daily payment of batta might have been made to facilitate the employee to meet his daily needs. It is urged by the learned counsel for the insurer that the Commissioner has used the expression “bhatta” which is same as “batta”, and, therefore, travelling allowance. The plea is clearly untenable in view of the claim of the claimants, accepted by the employers that payment of daily “bhatta” at a particular rate was being made when the deceased used to go outside with buck. The nature of expenditure dearly rules out in being travelling allowance and is clearly intended to be food allowance. A Division Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 328 of 1990, disposed of on 21 November 1992 held that bhatta is a part of wages; Judged in that background, it may be said that bhatia is encompassed by definition of wages. Commissioner was justified in treating bhatia as part of wages. The awards are confirmed. Appeals fail. Cross-objection filed in each case is not pressed. 65 per cent of the amount of award rounded to nearest 100, shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of five years and no loan or advance shall be advanced against it. It shall however, be open to the claimants to move the Commissioner for availing such facilities against the deposits in case of emergency, and the Commissioners shall permit availing of such facility on being satisfied about real emergency.
4. Both the appeals are dismissed. No costs.