JUDGMENT N.D.P. Namboodiripad, J. 1. The petitioner is the S.N.D.P. Yogam Branch No.846, Vavakkad, Moothakunnam. The second respondent was an employee of the petitioner. The petitioner found that there were serious laches on the part of the second respondent in the discharge of his duties, and, with a view to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner suspended the second respondent with effect from 27th February 1976, pending enquiry. 2. On 30th June 1977 the second respondent filed Ext. P1 petition before the first respondent, who is the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Authority appointed under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, Ernakulam. In Ext. P1 the second respondent claimed subsistence allowance on the basis of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, 27 of 1973 (briefly the Act). Against the claim so made the petitioner filed Ext. P2 statement, inter alia contending that the delinquent employee is not entitled to any allowance, because, he was carrying on the business of a Stamp Vendor during the period, and, as such, he cannot legally claim subsistence allowance. That contention was overruled and subsistence allowance was granted to the second respondent by the first respondent through Ext. P3 order. It is the validity of Ext. P3 order that is challenged in this Original Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. 3. The contention urged by the petitioner before the first respondent and repeated in this Court is that by virtue of the second proviso to S.3(1) of the Act the second respondent is not entitled to any subsistence allowance. Sub-s.(1) of S.3 with the two provisos may be read: "3. Payment of subsistence allowance.- (1) Whenever an employee is placed under suspension, he shall be paid by the employer for the period during which he is under suspension subsistence allowance of an amount equal to fifty per centum of the wages which the employee was drawing immediately before such suspension: Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds ninety days, the amount of subsistence allowance shall be increased after the expiry of ninety days to seventy five per centum of the wages which the employee was drawing immediately before such suspension: Provided further that an employee shall not be entitled to any subsistence allowance if he accepts employment during the period of suspension in any establishment other than the establishment where he had been working immediately before his suspension." 4. For the purpose of this case I need consider only the second proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.3. It is an admitted fact that the second respondent had the licence to function as Stamp Vendor even when he was under the employment of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that even after his suspension the second respondent continued to hold the licence to function as a Stamp Vendor. What is urged by the petitioner is that since the second respondent was deriving a sizable income as Stamp Vendor he is not entitled to any allowance by virtue of the second proviso to S.3(1) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged mat the very purpose of the Act is to make some provision for the suspended employees who suffer from "crippling financial stringency'', as referred to in the Statement of the Objects and Reasons of the Act. I am unable to accept that contention, because, the intention of the legislature has to be gathered from the express words used in the statute, and it is only if there is any ambiguity in the language that extraneous matters could be considered for the purpose of interpreting the relevant provision. 5. On an analysis of the second proviso to S.3(1) of the Act it would appear that the proviso can apply only if three conditions are satisfied cumulatively. They are: - (a) there must be an establishment other than the petitioners' establishment, (b) the suspended employee viz., the second respondent should have obtained an employment under such establishment, and (c) that the acceptance of employment by the second respondent must be during the period of suspension. The question is whether these conditions are satisfied as far as the second respondent is concerned. As far as condition (a) is concerned, it is very doubtful whether the authority which issued the licence is an establishment as defined in the Act. As far as condition (b) is concerned, it cannot be said that the relationship between the authority which issued the licence and the second respondent, the licensee, is that of an employer and employee. To constitute employment as has been held by the Supreme Court in Sankar Balaji v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 517 there must be an employer, an employee and a contract of employment. To constitute employment as has been held by the Supreme Court in Sankar Balaji v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 517 there must be an employer, an employee and a contract of employment. These ingredients, according to me, are wanting in the case of the issuance of a licence by the competent authority to sell Stamp. Condition (c) is not certainly satisfied because the licence to function as Stamp Vendor was not obtained by the second respondent after his suspension by the petitioner employer. 6. From the foregoing discussion it follows that the mere continuance of the second respondent as a licensee for selling stamps does not amount to the acceptance of employment from another establishment during the period of suspension. The first respondent was right in holding that the second proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.3 of the Act will not apply and that the second respondent is entitled to subsistence allowance in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. I find no reason to interfere with Ext. P3 order. In the result the Original Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.