delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :

In 1941 several workmen of the American Railroad Company claimed the payment of wages earned under the Federal Wage and Hour Law. On November 4, 1941, said claim was settled. The company paid the sum of $700,000 to be distributed among the claimants in payment of the difference between the wages already received by them and those to which they were entitled pursuant to the Federal Act.

Several injured workmen, who had been paid per diems based on the wages which they earned on the day of the accident, asked the Manager of the State Insurance Fund to readjust said per diems and compensations in conformity with the wages as raised by the amount corresponding to each of the claimants by virtue of the aforesaid settlement. Thereupon, in May 1942, the manager made an investigation of the payrolls of the company. The inspectors appointed by the manager informed the latter that the company had failed to> include in the payrolls corresponding to the fiscal years 1938-39, 1939-40, Í940-41, and part of 1941-42 the sum of *600$659,999.33 paid to the workmen as wages due. The manager then levied' additional premiums on the company for said years, as follows:

Oct. 28,1938, to June 30, 1939 (245 days) $146, 733. 07

Year 1939-40 (365 days)' 218, 602. 31

Year 1940-41 (365 days) 218, 602. 31

July 1, 1941 to Nov. 4, 1941 (127 days) ‘ 76, 061, 64

Total . $659,999.33

On May 21, 1943, the Manager of the Fund notified the petitioning company of the report presented by his auditors in connection with the period between January 1 and June 30, 1942, wherein there was included, as wages paid, the sum of $20,554.10 which had been paid to the workmen subsequent to said period, in conformity with the above-mentioned settlement entered into by the company and the claimant workmen.

Feeling aggrieved by the decisions of the manager, the company appealed to the Industrial Commission. On November 1, 1943, the commission rendered its decision affirming the two decisions of the manager and upon a reconsideration being sought, the same was denied. The company-thereupon took the present appeal.

In support of its petition to review and set aside ,the decisions appealed from, the petitioner assigns in its brief seven errors which in its opinion were committed by the Industrial Commission. The questions raised by said seven assignments and which are before us to be considered and decided are as follows:

Did the Manager of' the State Insurance Fund act lawfully in levying on the petitioner the premiums básed on the amounts paid to the workmen, by virtue of a settlement of - a claim for unpaid earned wages, taking into account that said sums were' paid subsequently to the dates when the payrolls corresponding to the period from October 28, 1938, to June 30, 1942, were drawn up and paid?

*601The petitioner contends that the manager is only authorized to assess and collect the prémiums corresponding to a particular fiscal year, taking as a basis the payrolls of wages actually paid by the employer during the fiscal year prior to the levying of the premiums. In.support of its contention it invokes the provisions of §§25 to 28, inclusive, of Act No. 45 of April 18, 1935, Workmen’s Compensation Act.1

The arguments set forth by the petitioner are not convincing. It is true that according to a literal and strict construction. of said Sections, the manager must take as a basis for assesing and levying the annual premiums to bo paid by the employer “the total amount of.wages paid . . . during the year prior to the levying of the premiums”; that the premiums shall be fixed as soon as the manager receives the report provided by §27 of the act; and that in the case at bar the manager assessed and collected from the petitioner tne premiums corresponding to the years in controversy, taking as a basis for each one of said years the *602total amount of the wages paid during the preceding year. However, we find nothing in the cited Sections, nor is there any provision in the Workmen’s Compensation Act; which forbids the Manager of the State Fund to levy and collect premiums on the wag'es that an insured should have paid his workmen under the statute in force, during a fixed year, and which he failed to pay until after the expiration of said year.

The Federal Act known as ‘ ‘ Fair Labor Standards Act, ’ ’ approved in 1938, became effective in Puerto Rico in the second semester of that same year. That said Act is applicable to the petitioner herein is an uncontrovertible fact. The Railroad Company expressly admitted this in the agreement entered into on November 7, 1941, by itself and more than one thousand one hundred workmen, to settle a claim filed by said workmen “for unpaid'earned wages,” under the Act of Congress of 1938 of Fair Labor Standards. Upon making *603payment of the amount due to each one of the claimants, the company demanded a receipt which in' its pertinent part reads as follows:

“I. . . . have received from the American Railroad Company of Porto Rico the sum of . . . dollars, in payment of the difference between the wages earned by me from October 24, 1938, until November 4, 1941, inclusive, and the wages to which I was entitled pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act approved in 1938, which payment has been made to me and accepted under the terms and conditions of the contract executed on November 4, 1941. ’ ’

Therefore, it its clear that by the express terms of the contract of settlement and of the receipt attached thereto, the petitioning company admitted that the amounts which it paid' to each one of the claiming workmen, subsequent to November 4, 1941, are the same amounts to which said workmen were entitled pursuant to the Federal Act and which the Railroad Company was bound to pay to them as part of their wages during the period covered from October 24, 1938, to November 4, 1941.

*604It is ■ unquestionable that if tbe petitioner bad paid to its workmen tbe wages fixed by the Federal Act, at the proper time, tbe Manager of the Fund would have been able to assess and levy tbe premiums in strict compliance with the applicable provisions of the local statute. The annual premiums must be fixed on the total amount of the wages paid by the employer to his workmen during the year prior to the levying of the premiums. It is so provided by §25 of the Insular Act. However, in our opinion, it was not the intention of the lawmaker to enact a statute so strict and inflexible as to provide that the only amount upon which the levying of the premiums could be based is the amount actually or really paid by the employer to his workmen during the preceding year and to prohibit the taking as a basis the amount that should have been paid pursuant to the statute but which was not paid at the right time through the employer’s own fault, negligence, or error.

The plan for workmen’s insurance against labor accidents and occupational diseases can not exist without a> sol-*605veiit fund; and the solvency of the State Insurance Fund can not he maintained if the manager fails to collect from the employers the premiums on the amounts earned by their workmen during each fiscal year, disregarding the date on which payment was made to the workmen. The underlying principle of §25 of the Act is to render possible the collection of the premiums in advance, taking as a basis the total amount of wages paid during the preceding year. Section 26 provides the proceeding under which the employer pays and the manager collects the premiums corresponding to a specific fiscal year, on the basis of the total amount paid to the workmen during that same year. In accordance with said Section, at the end of the fiscal year the manager shall .compare the payroll for such fiscal year with the payroll of the preceding year on the basis of which the premiums of the year under liquidation were tentatively assessed. If the. payroll for this year is greater than that of the previous year, the manager shall assess and levy and the Treasurer shall collect, on the difference, additional premiums; and if *606the payroll is less than that of the previous year, the manager shall refund to the employer the difference in his favor. The application of said Section makes possible the liquidation of the premiums corresponding to each fiscal year, on the basis of the total amount in the payroll of the wages earned End paid on said year, and it prevents the Fund from enriching itself at the expense of the employer and vice versa.

“Equity regards that as done which ought to he done.” This old and wise maxim seems apposite to a case like the present one. The petitioner finally performed — nunc pro tunc — on November 4, 1941, that which it ought to have done at the time when it paid its workmen for work accomplished during the years 1938 to 1942. It is only fair and just that we consider the payments made in 1941 as if they had been made at the time when they should have been made under the law, for all legal purposes, including the' assessment, levying, and collection of the premiums corresponding to the amounts thus paid. To hold the contrary would be equivalent *607to permitting the petitioner to' benefit and enrich itself as a result of its own fault, negligence, or mistake in not complying with the law.

It can not be rightly said that the State Insurance Fund will unjustly enrich itself if it is allowed to collect now what it should have collected formerly. In the first place, the failure to collect the premiums previously was not due to the fault or negligence of the manager, but to that of the company which failed to pay the wages in accordance with the Federal Act and at the right time. In the second place, the Fund is bound to pay the per diems and compensations to the injured workmen or to the beneficiaries of those who lose their lives in labor accidents, taking as a basis the wages that the workmen earned on the day of the accident. The manager fixed and paid per diems and compensations for accidents which occurred on petitioner’s railroad, during the years 1938 to 1941, taking as a basis the payroll filed by the company for each one of said years. Alleging that the payments of overdue wages made in 1941 should be considered as made at the time when they should have been made, several workmen have moved for a readjustmen of the per diems and compensations which were granted to them on the basis of the payrolls filed by the company. Whether or not the claimant workmen are entitled-to the readjustment sought is a question which has not been brought before us for decision, and therefore we shall not pass upon the merits of the same. But we do hold that the Fund has a right to be put in a position where it can meet the demands for said readjustments, in the event that a decision should be rendered in favor of the workmen.

Petitioner- alleges that the Industrial Commission-acted without jurisdiction in deciding that the act known as “Fair Labor Standards Act” is binding on the petitioner and applicable to all its workmen.

*608We find lao pronouncement whatsoever made by the commission in the decision appealed from as to the applicability of the Federal Act to the American Railroad Company and its employees. The commission, in setting forth the facts, stated that the workmen had claimed unpaid wages to which they alleged to be entitled according to the Federal Act. And in explaining the theory of the manager, it stated that it was the latter’s contention that the Federal Act was applicable to the petitioner.

Neither in its allegations before the commission nor in its brief filed with this court, has the petitioner raised the question of the applicabiilty of tlje Federal Act. The error assigned was not committed.

For the reasons stated the decision appealed from must be affirmed.