( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

( 2 ) ). In the present petition, the order passed by the Payment of Wages authority, Vadodara in Application No. 425 of 1990 dated 30-6-1999 is challenged by the petitioner-United Catalysts (India) Limited [hereinafter referred to as, the Company].

( 3 ) ). The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-workman had preferred an application before the Payment of Wages Authority at Vadodara being Application No. 425 of 1990 for payment of subsistence allowance for 60 months and compensation thereon totalling Rs. 83. 700. 00. According to the respondent- workman, he was suspended pending departmental inquiry on 24th August, 1985, and thereafter, he requested the petitioner for payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the departmental inquiry, however, no payments were made to the petitioner, and thereafter, on 14th August, 1989, he gave written application to the petitioner under the provisions of the Model Standing Orders, stating that he was entitled to get subsistence allowance during the pendency of the departmental proceedings at the rate of 75 % (seventy-five percent) for 60 months which comes to Rs. 41,850. 00. He also preferred his claim for compensation of the said amount which comes to total of Rs. 83,700. 00. The petitioner-Company, in reply to the notice, resisted the claim made by the respondent-workman and filed their reply at Exh. 5 and pointed out that application under Sec. 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act is not at all maintainable and that the subsistence allowance is not covered within the definition meaning of Sec. 2 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The petitioner-Company also raised objections against the jurisdiction of the Authority and also raised contention with regard to delay in filing the said application. Thereafter, vide Exh. 8 purshis parties have submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the suspension of the workman concerned during the pendency of the departmental inquiry and their oral evidence was closed. The respondent workman had produced a copy of suspension order vide Exh. 9. Thereafter, the Authority has examined the merits of the matter and also the contentions raised by both the parties with regard to the limitation as well as payment of subsistence allowance. The Authority has also considered the decision of kanataka High Court and came to the conclusion that respondent-workman is entitled to subsistence allowance of Rs. 41,850. 00. However, the claim of compensation raised by the respondent-workman was rejected by the Authority.

( 4 ) ). Mr. N. K. Majmudar, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner- company has fairly admitted that there is no dispute about the suspension of the respondent-workman during the pendency of the departmental inquiry. He also fairly admitted that during the suspension period, the petitioner has not been paid any amount of subsistence allowance. However, Mr. Majmudar has raised a contention that the subsistence allowance is not covered within the definition of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and that there is a delay in filing the Wages Application under the provisions of Sec. 15 (2) of the Act, therefore, according to him, the Authority has committed error in admitting and entertaining the application which was filed belately before it by the workman concerned, and therefore, the Authority has committed gross error in considering it. In support of this contention, Mr. Majmudar has placed reliance upon a decision rendered by Guwhati High Court in the matter of S. K. Majmudar v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in 1983 Lab. 1c 1178. He also pointed out that definition of wages given in Sec. 2 (6) does not include subsistence allowance, and therefore, the Authority has no jurisdiction to pass any order granting subsistence allowance to the respondent-workman. He also cited one decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Bombay Dyeing and mfgr