Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) U.P. Road Transport Corporation has filed this writ petition against the order of the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act dated 04.02.2009 where under the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the writ petitioner qua maintainability of the application before the authority concerned has been rejected. Facts in short for deciding the controversy are as follows : Respondent workmen who are 61 in number made an application under Section 15 and 16 of the Payment of Wages Act claiming Bonus to the extent of 8.33% of the salary paid to them. The employers with reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Hari Fertilizers, Varanasi vs. IV Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others reported in 1995 FLR, 866 raised a objection that such application for bonus could be filed before the authority mentioned under the Payment of Bonus Act and not before the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the objection so raised after recording that bonus as claimed by the workmen is included within the definition of wages and therefore, such a claim could be made under the Payment of Wages Act. This order of the Prescribed Authority is being questioned before this Court basically with reference to the judgement of this Court in the case of M/s. Hari Fertilizers (supra). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. From the definition of wages as contained in the Payment of Wages Act, this Court finds that under Section 2 (vi) (c), 1) bonus has been excluded if payable under an scheme of profit sharing or otherwise 2) However 'Bonus' has been included within the definition of wages as per Section 2(4) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if it is payable as remuneration to the employee concerned. Therefore, from the reading of the aforesaid two provisions, the issue which needs examination is as to whether bonus as claimed is part of the wages or not has to be determined with reference to the fact as to whether it is being claimed under an scheme of Profit Sharing or otherwise as a part of a remuneration for the work done in terms of money. The aforesaid issues necessarily require adjudication of fact and evidence has to be led by the parties. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings this Court cannot record a conclusive finding in the matter as evidence of the parties has yet to be recorded before the Prescribed Authority. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Hari Fertilizers (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner has also to be examined in light of the aforesaid two definitions and facts which are found established on record with reference to the evidence to be led by the parties. However I am of the considered opinion that the issue may be left open to be adjudicated after the application made by the respondents no. 1 to 61 is finally decided by the Payment of Wages Authority with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the maintainability of the proceedings, if they are decided against them. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is dismissed, subject to the liberty granted above.;