Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) 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. Heard Shri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudhanshu Narain, the learned counsel for respondent. 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. Vs. Popat Murlidhar Patil and Ors., 1997 (75) FLR 589 and Deccan Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Avdhoot Marutirao Rane and Anr., 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 Anr. Vs. Kartar Singh, 1966 (13) FLR 174 and Karnataka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Karpi, 1987 (55) FLR 385. 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. 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 Vs. Industrial Tribunal Karnataka, Bangalore and Anr., AIR 1990 SC 1080, which would be referred hereinafter. In so far as the provisions under Section 7 of the Payment of Wages Act is concerned, there is no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition. Deduction of loss from wages on account of suspension does not amount to deduction of wages, and a claim for such an amount would not be maintainable under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. Consequently, Section 7 has no application in the present facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the present controversy. However, the question still remains is, whether non-payment of subsistence allowance forms part of wages or not? In order to appreciate the issue involved, it would be appropriatable to peruse the provision of Section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act, which is quoted hereunder:- "Section 2 (vi). "wages" means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances, or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes- (a) any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court; (b) any remuneration to which the person employed is entitled in respect of overtime work or holidays or any leave period; (c) any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment (whether called a bonus or by any other name); (d) any sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the person employed is payable under any law, contract or instrument which provides for the payment of such sum, whether with or without deductions, but does not provide for the time within which the payment is to be made; (e) any sum to which the person employed is entitled under any scheme framed under any law for the time being in force, but does not include- (1) any bonus (whether under a scheme of profit sharing or otherwise) which does not form part of the remuneration payable under the terms of employment or which is not payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a Court; (2) the value of any house-accommodation, or of the supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service excluded from the computation of wages by a general or special order of the appropriate Government; (3) any contribution paid by the employer to any pension or provident fund, and the interest which may have accrued thereon; (4) any travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession; (5) any sum paid to the employed person to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment; or (6) any gratuity payable on the termination of employment in cases other than those specified in sub- clause (d)." Once an employer suspends an employee, it becomes the duty of the employer to pay the subsistence allowance under the Model Standing Orders, which apply to the petitioner. THEre is an express provision which entitles a workman for the subsistence allowance, if he is suspended during the pendency of an enquiry. When a workman is suspended, his contract of service is not suspended. THE relationship between the employer and the workman during the pendency of the enquiry subsists. Consequently, the obligation of the employer to pay the wages to the workman continues. THE suspension merely prohibits the employer from giving any work to the employee during the disciplinary proceedings. If the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, the remuneration would be payable to a workman in respect of his employment, or of work done in such employment as contemplated in Section 2 (y) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Identical words has also been incorporated in the definition of the word "wages" as defined in Section 2 (y) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which provision has been explained by the Supreme Court in Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore (Supra) after considering its earlier judgments in Bennett Coleman and Co. Pvt Ltd. Vs. Punya Prya Das Gupta, AIR 1970 SC 426; and Dilbagh Rai Jarry Vs. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 130, wherein it was held that an allowance contemplated under the definition clause of the word "wages" was an allowance which from the term of the employment flows as not contingent on actual working was part of wages. THE Supreme Court further held that an allowance which was earnable only by active serving was not an allowance which would form part of wages. THE Supreme Court held: "Now confluencing the two legal thoughts expressed in Bennett Coleman's case (AIR 1970 SC 426 (supra) and Dilbagh Rai Jarry's case (AIR 1974 SC 130 (supra), the stream of thought which inevitably gurgles up is that an allowance which from the term of employment flows as not contingent on actual working is part of wages for the purposes of S.33 (2) (b) but an allowance which is earnable only by active serving is not an allowance which will form part of wages within the meaning of the said provision." In the light of the aforesaid, it is clear that the subsistence allowance is an allowance which from the term of the employment flows as not contingent on actual working. This part of wages is contemplated under Section 2 (i) (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act. Subsistence allowance is that allowance which the workman gets pending enquiry, even though he is not working, and, in my opinion, would be covered as an allowance under Section 2 (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Cold Mines Ltd. and Anr., 1999 (82) FLR 627, the Supreme Court held that subsistence allowance was none else but a reduced salary. Similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and Ors., 1987 (4) SCC 328, namely: "An order of suspension of a Government servant does not put an end to his service under the Government. He continues to be a member of the service in spite of the order of suspension. THE real effect of suspension as explained by this Court, Khem Chand Vs. Union of India is that he continues to be a member of the Government service but is not permitted to work and further during the period of suspension he is paid only some allowance generally called subsistence allowance which is normally less than the salary instead of the pay and allowances he would have been entitled to if he had not been suspended. THEre is no doubt that an order of suspension, unless the departmental inquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects a Government servant injuriously. THE very expression 'subsistence allowance' has an undeniable penal significance. THE dictionary meaning of the words 'Subsist' as given in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Vol. II at p. 2171 is "to remain alive as on food: to continue to exist", "Subsistence" means- means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood." In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the subsistence allowance is, in fact, a nick name for "reduced wages" or "reduced salary". Consequently, the subsistence allowance is part of wages and is covered under Section 2 (vi) of the Payment of wages Act. Similar view has been reiterated by various Courts in Divisional Superintendent N.R. Vs. Mukund Lal, 1957 (2) LLJ 452; APSRTC Vs. Payment of Wages Authority, 1969 (35) FJR 417; Asha Ram Birla Vs. G.M. Raj Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited, 1983 Raj.LR 687; General Superintendent, PWD Workshop, Hyderabad Vs. D. Prabhakar Chetty and Anr., 1978 (52) FJR 357; and United Catalysts India Ltd. Vs. Prabhat Mottabhai Gohil, 2000 (86) FLR 238. In view of the aforesaid, the Presiding Officer was justified in holding that the subsistence allowance was part of wages. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed.;