Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The respondent workman filed a claim application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act alleging that subsistence allowance was not being paid by the employer during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner filed their written statement and contended that the claim application was not maintainable, and that, no application under Section 15 could be filed by the workman, inasmuch as the subsistence allowance was not a wage nor does it come within the meaning of Section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act. The petitioner submitted that since subsistence allowance was not a wage, there was no deduction of wages, and consequently, the application under Section 16 of the Payment of Wages Act was not maintainable. A preliminary issue was framed, namely, whether subsistence allowance was part of wages or not? The Prescribed Authority, after considering the matter, held that the subsistence allowance was part of wages, and that, non-payment of the subsistence allowance amounted to a wrongful deduction, and therefore, the application, at the instance of the workman, was maintainable. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a review application, which was dismissed, and consequently, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Heard Shri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudhanshu Narain, the learned counsel for respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subsistence allowance is not a wage or part of a wage. The learned counsel submitted that subsistence allowance was a payment made purely by reason of a statutory obligation, and that, it could not amount to a remuneration or wages, or allowance, as contemplated within the meaning of the definition of the word “wages” as defined under Section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision in Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. Popat Murlidhar Patil and others, 1997 (75) FLR 589 and Deccan Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Avdhoot Marutirao Rane and another, 2008 (116) FLR 993, wherein the Court held that the subsistence allowance was not a remuneration and, therefore, not a wage, as defined under Section 2 (21) of the Payment of Bonus Act. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the provisions of Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, contending that any loss of wages, resulting from the imposition, does not amount to deduction of wages. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions in District Mechanical Engineer, S.E. Railway and another v. Kartar Singh, 1966 (13) FLR 174 and Karnataka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Karpi, 1987 (55) FLR 385.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted that the subsistence allowance was nothing else, but a reduced salary, and that the subsistence allowance was an allowance which forms part of wages as defined under Section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on various judgments, which will be referred hereinafter.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not require any interference and that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is patently erroneous. In so far as the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. and Deccan Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the said judgments are distinguishable, inasmuch as it has considered the provisions of wages as defined under the Payment of Bonus Act which is distinguishable. In any case, this Court is of the opinion that the judgments stands impliedly overruled in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore v. Industrial Tribunal Kar