P.C. Naik, J.
1. This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation. As there is no cross-objection or cross-appeal, detailed facts need not be gone into.
2. The claimant-appellant is the widow of one late Sudhir Barik, who died on 12.3.1993 due to the injuries sustained by him on 19.10.1992 in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. On the date of death, his age was 42 years and 8 months and he was drawing monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 2,325.50. An application was filed by the claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Balasore, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,06,290.40. On being noticed, the opposite parties-respondents filed the written statement denying the liability. The Commissioner, on a consideration of the material on record and keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, determined compensation at Rs. 70,216. Aggrieved thereby, the claimant-appellant is before this Court for enhancement of the compensation by Rs. 1,36,074.
3. The enhancement is claimed on the ground that as the deceased was admittedly drawing monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 2,325.50, the Commissioner was in error in calculating the compensation by taking the wages as Rs. 1,000 per month. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on a single Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Lajjawanti v. Haryana Roadways (1993) 1 AJR 119. In substance, the contention of the learned Counsel is that the Commissioner, in view of the specific language of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, was in error in not taking the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs. 2,325.50. It is submitted that as it is a beneficial legislation, this interpretation was more in consonance with the object of the Act. The argument, though attractive, cannot be accepted.
4. To begin with, we may quote Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and the Explanation-II thereto which read thus:
4. Amount of compensation.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:
(a) where death an amount equal to results from forty per cent of the the injury monthly wages of the deceased work-man multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more;xxx xxx xxxExplanation I.-For the purposes of Clause (a) and Clause (b), 'relevant factor', in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due;
Explanation II.-Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed one thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of Clause (a) and Clause (b) shall be deemed to be one thousand rupees only;xxx xxx xxx
5. From a reading of the provisions quoted above, it is seen that the calculation of compensation under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4, is subject to the provisions of this Act. In other words, while determining the compensation, other relevant provisions of the Act regarding the basis on or manner in which it has to be calculated have to be borne in mind. Under Explanation-II, in a case where the monthly wages of a workman exceed Rs. 1,000, the compensation is to be calculated by treating the wages or restricting the wages to Rs. 1,000 only. Therefore, this provision, in view of the express language of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4, has also to be borne in mind.
6. The contention that Explanation-II cannot restrict the full operation of Clause (a) to Sub-section (1) of Section 4, cannot be accepted. An 'Explanation' is something which is appended to a section to explain the meaning of the words contained therein and, as observed in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 661, it becomes a part and parcel of the enactment. A meaning given to an 'Explanation' would normally depend upon its terms and a construction is to be put to it which is consistent to the purpose for which it was enacted. As observed in Bihta Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. v. Bank of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 389, it may only explain and may not expand the scope of the original section. An 'Explanation' as observed in State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252, could introduce a friction or settle a matter of controversy. A reference may also be made to Hiralal Ratanlal v. Sales Tax Officer, Section III. Kanpur AIR 1973 SC 1034, where it has been observed that if on a true reading of an Explanation it appears that it has widened the scope of the main section, effect must be given to legislative intent notwithstanding the fact that the legislature named that provision as an Explanation. Thus, in such matters the courts have to find out the true intention of the legislature, as an Explanation may also, in a given case, be added to exclude something. Therefore, it is in this light that the legislative intent with reference to Explanation-II has to be construed and this would naturally be by considering the relevant provision and the effect of the Explanation thereto. So, while construing an Explanation, nothing is to be omitted, for it cannot be said that something was incorporated in a particular enactment without any purpose.
7. No doubt, in Lajjawanti's case (1993) I AJR 119, compensation has been determined by taking wages as Rs. 1,430, i.e., in excess of Rs. 1,000 per month. But, it appears that the Explanation-II to Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 was not noticed, as the same was probably not brought to the notice of the court at the time of hearing. The contention that in view of the beneficial nature of the statute, Explanation-II ought not to be taken into consideration and the wages determined by taking it as Rs. 2,325.50 per month, also cannot be gone into in this proceeding.
8. From the reading of the provisions contained in Section 4, which have been quoted in the earlier part of this judgment, I find that the words 'monthly wages' in the expression 'the amount equal to forty per cent of monthly wages' occurring in Clause (a) are relevant for determining compensation in case of death. However, Explanation-II clearly provides that in a case where the 'monthly wages' of a workman exceed Rs. 1,000, his monthly wages for the purpose of Clauses (a) and (b) shall be deemed to be Rs. 1,000 only. Even a plain reading of Explanation-II makes its intention and meaning clear, i.e., in a case where the workman, dead or injured, as the case may be, was earning monthly wages exceeding Rs. 1,000, the compensation is to be determined by limiting his wages at Rs. 1,000 per month. Thus, it does not expand the meaning of the words 'monthly wages' occurring in Clauses (a) and (b). Rather, it restricts the meaning thereof.
9. However, from the facts on record, it is noticed that the Commissioner was in error in determining the compensation by adopting 175.54 as the relevant factor as probably he was under an impression that because on the date of death the workman has crossed his 42nd birthday, the relevant factor would be the one provided for the age of 43. This is a clear error. For the purpose of determining the relevant factor, what is required to be seen is 'the completed years of age' on the last birthday of the workman immediately preceding to the date of death. It is not disputed that the date of birth of the workman is 7.7.1950. Therefore, the completed years of age have to be determined on the basis of his completed age on his last birthday (i.e. 7.7.1992) immediately preceding to the date of the death when the compensation fell due, i.e., the date of death which is 12.3.1993. This shows that on the date of death, he had completed 42 years. Thus, the Commissioner ought to have taken 178.49 as the relevant factor and not 175.54. On this basis, by taking 178.49 as the relevant factor, the compensation will work out to Rs. 71,396. Thus, the said amount of Rs. 71,396 would be the proper compensation to which the claimant is entitled under the Act. As a sum of Rs. 70,206 has already been deposited, as stated by the counsel for respondent No. 1, the balance amount of Rs. 1,190 (Rupees one thousand one hundred and ninety) shall be deposited before Commissioner on or before 31.3.98. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be paid to the claimant promptly.
10. In the result, the misc. appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.