JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. In view of the office report dated July 17, 2003 service of notice on opposite party No. 3, is held sufficient. The matter is heard with the consent of the parties and being decided.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act and the order passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Prescribed Authority has allowed the payment of subsistence allowance amounting to Rs. 4,130.50 holding it to be unwarranted deduction from the wages of the concerned workman. The Prescribed Authority has also allowed the damages for inaction of the employer and granted fine equivalent to Rs. 4,130.50 and cost of Rs. 50/-. It is this order, which is challenged by the employer-petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the amount of subsistence allowance cannot be termed as wages and therefore, the authority under the Payment of Wages Act has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in view of the definition of wages defined under Section 2 Sub-section (vi) of the Payment of Wages Act. This contention has rightly been rejected by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate authority and so, it is also rejected by this Court.
4. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. The employers are directed to pay the amount allowed by the Prescribed Authority within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before them.