Stone, C J

[1] This is an appeal from the judgment, dated April 7, 1946, of Mr. M.J. Merchant, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, sitting as Commissioner under the Workmen s Compensation Act, and the only matter which we have to consider in this appeal is the quantum of the compensation awarded.

[2] Under the fourth schedule to the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923, a table is set out with regard to the amount of compensation payable on death, and this table is referential to the amount of the monthly wages of the workman concerned. In this case the Commissioner awarded the sum of Rs. 1,350 on the basis that the deceased workman s wages were more than Rs. 40 and not more than Rs. 45. "Wages" are defined in Sub-section 2 (1)(m) of the Act as including any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than travelling expenses i and other matters with which we are not concerned.

[3] The finding of fact in the Commissioner s judgment is in para. 7:

The basic pay of the deceased was Rs. 25 per month. He used to get Rs. 10 as dearness allowance. Admittedly, he was given tree quarters and free water within the company s factory. In the application (i.e. the application of his widow and minor children) these amenities are valued at Rs.

10. In the written statement this valuation and the fact that he used to receive these amenities are not denied nor disputed.

[4] It is suggested by Mr. J.C. Shah, on behalf of the employer, that the dearness allowance and the Rs. 10 value of the amenities ought not to be included in grossing up the actual cash wages paid to the workman for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of compensation pursuant to the fourth schedule. But, in our opinion, the dearness allowance must clearly be included. It is in no sense a bonus, but is something which attaches continuously to the wages in order to enhance it, so as to be on a more comparative basis with the cost of living. With regard to the amenities, the free quarters and the water, this also is a continuous amenity and in our judgment comes directly within the sort of privilege and benefits included in the definition of "wages" in Sub-section 2(1)(m). Accordingly the basis of calculation of the compensation has been rightly made, and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.