RAJESH BALIA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation challenges the order dt. 20th March, 1995 passed in Approval Application No. 24 of 1994 by the conciliation Officer, Bharuch, Respondent No. 1 was employed as Conductor with the petitioner. While some industrial dispute was pending before the Conciliation Officer, the petitioner held inquiry into the alleged misconduct of the respondents for carrying passengers without tickets after charging fare from them. As a result of said inquiry proceeding, the competent officer intended to impose penalty of removal from service. He, therefore, passed an order of dismissal on 25/3/1994 and made an application before the Labour Court under Sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as I. D. Act for short ). According to the petitioner, one month wages amounting to Rs. 1,753/- were paid to the respondent No. l. The Conciliation Officer found that while dismissing him, an amount of Rs. 3-80 Ps. has been paid short than the wages payable for the month of March. That was found to be less payment on account of allowance payable for Over Time. According to the Pay Slip, Rs. 57-20ps. was shown to have been paid as over Time. Allowance. While according to the Conciliation Officer, it came to Rs. 60- 77 ps. Corporation, in support of plea that no short payments under the provision of sec. 33 (2) of the Act have been made, has produced before the Conciliation Officer the pay Slip of the months of February 1994 and March 1994. ( 2 ) CONTENTION has 6eeen raised before me that even comparison of two Pay Slips would show that there has been no short payment of wages payable for one month by the employer in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record of this petition copies of set of wages bills. From comparison of two Pay Bills, learned counsel contends that first in February, no payment has been made as Backward Area allowance which goes to show that backward area allowance was not payable and cannot be considered as wages with in the meaning of Sec. (2) (b) of Sec. 33 of the Act. From comparison of two Pay Bills, learned counsel contends that first in February, no payment has been made as Backward Area allowance which goes to show that backward area allowance was not payable and cannot be considered as wages with in the meaning of Sec. (2) (b) of Sec. 33 of the Act. Secondly, it has been stated that no deductions, statutory or not statutory, have been made while making payment for the month of March 1994, which was otherwise deductible, is apparent from the wage slip for the month of February, 1994. He also contended that professional Tax, which is a statutory tax and his employer is under obligation to deduct from all the salaries paid from its employees, has to be taken into account while determining as to what amount was payable as wage for the purpose of Secs. 33 (2) (b) of the Act keeping in mind, the definition of wage under Sec. 2 (rr ). In this connection, the learned counsel relied on the decision-of Supreme Court in the case of S. Ganapathy and others vs. Air India and another, reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2430. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents urged that so far as payment on account of backward area allowance is concerned, it is shown to be payable as per Pay Slip prepared by the employer himself and there is no reason to consider the same amount to be not payable. He further contends that if no amount has been deducted from the salary bill, it must be taken that the employer has voluntarily waived his right to deduct amount and salary for the purpose of determining the question of compliance of Sec. 33 (2) (b) must be considered without taking into consideration whether any amount is deductible there from or not. ( 4 ) HAVING carefully considered the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. Sec. 33 of the i. D. Act puts certain restriction on the employer in making orders of dismissal or otherwise for any misconduct of the employee which is not connected with the dispute. ( 4 ) HAVING carefully considered the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. Sec. 33 of the i. D. Act puts certain restriction on the employer in making orders of dismissal or otherwise for any misconduct of the employee which is not connected with the dispute. Such restrictions are that in respect of any misconduct not connected with the pending industrial dispute before an order of discharge or punishment is made, employer is required to pay wages for one month and has also to make an application to the authority before whom the proceeding is pending for approval of action taken by the employer. Two conditions are the mandatory requirements which has to be followed to bring about the valid order in existence. ( 5 ) WHERE an application for approval made, necessary question which arises for consideration by the approving authority is as to what were the wages payable which were required to be paid for that month in order to spell compliance of the rquirements. wages and wages payable are two different expresson. Wages have been defined u/s. 2 (rr) of the Act. wages means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which are payable to a workman in respect of his employment, when terms of employment are fulfilled and includes such allowance which the workman is for the time being entitled to. However, question of payability of wage inheres into if the amount which becomes actually payable to the employee after adjusting the deductions etc. which are the statutory required to be deducted before payment is made. Deductions amounts which can be adjusted by the employer under contract are different from statutory obligation, and stands on different footing and may have to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of the case in each case. It cannot be said that whatever is constituted as wage for the month, all become payable without adjustment of amounts which are otherwise payable by the workman and it is the statutory duty of the employer to deduct such amount from his wages before paying to workmen and make it over to the authority to whom such payment is required to be made, more particularly when the amount of taxes which are governed by separate statute. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, in my opinion, the determination of question whether full amount of wages payable of one month has been paid or not cannot rest with computation of the monthly or daily wages and other allowance to which the employee is entitled to without taking into consideration the amount which are otherwise deductible from such salary under statutory obligation and has to be accounted for before payment is handed over to the workman. More particularly when the approval is to disciplinary order in respect of proved misconduct is sought to be withheld only on acount of short fall of a minor sum which is otherwise accountable on showing total amount which is payable by the employer to the employee for the month. No strait jacket formula can be applied in respect of all the deductions or entitlement on every many short fall. In my aforesaid conclusion, I am fortified by the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in S. Ganapathy and others vs. Air India and anothers case (supra ). It was the case where workman was an employee of Air India. Approval for his dismissal was not accorded on the ground that one month salary or wages were paid to the employee by reducting some of Rs. 15/- as deductible on account of monthly payment of tax on employment, imposed on salary and wage earners, under the provisions of the West Bengal State Tax on professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1979. Rejection order when challenged was not sustained by the Bombay High Court. On appeal, affirming order. passed by the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court held as under:-"this is a field in which the interest of both parties has to be kept in view, for the situation would be precarious for the employer if he were not to deduct tax under S. 4 of the Tax Act and exposing him to the dangers of penalties and prosecution. If approval was to be rejected on merit and otherwise to be rejected for not making complete payment of one month wage, it would thus be just and proper to let the employer deduct the statutory tax deduction from that one month wage, since the relationship of employer and an employee has effectively not been terminated, to meet the eventuality, let the approval application be dismissed on merit. On the other hand it would be just and proper either for the employer on his own or on the asking of the Tribunal to let the sum representing statutory tax deduction be deposited in the Tribunal for payment to the workman in the event of the approval application being allowed. ""here distinction would have to be drawn between statutory deductions like tax deductions and other deductions which the employer considers he can make. In either event, he takes the risk when making a deduction. In the case of statutory tax deductions, his justificatory burden is less, for he has the shelter of the tax law. The case of the other deductions would obviously be on different footing for he may not have any thrust of law. Those may purely be contractual. Those deductions may not be compulsive under any law. The employer makes the deduction in such cases at his peril. But here, in the present situation, there definitely arose a genuine claim to make the tax deduction and doing so the employer projected its case before the Tribunal in that angle. " ( 7 ) LIKEWISE in the present circumstances, in my opinion, approving authority patently erred in jumping to conclusion about short payment for the month of March which was required to be made before the order of dismissal became effective, merely on the basis of finding that Rs. 3. 80 Ps. have been computed less under the head "amount payable for Over Time Service", without considering the amount which was shown payable for the month of February under heads of various allowances and deductions which were made in the month of February and were not made in the month of March which is apparent from the Pay Bills which were before it. Duductions in february included amount payable as professional Tax, amongst other deductions statutory as well as non-statutory. It goes to show that it arrived at the conclusion about short payment of one month wage without application of mind on the materials before it. It may also be noticed that for computing wages payable only sum which has to be taken into account is to which the employee is entitled to be paid under the terms of employment. It goes to show that it arrived at the conclusion about short payment of one month wage without application of mind on the materials before it. It may also be noticed that for computing wages payable only sum which has to be taken into account is to which the employee is entitled to be paid under the terms of employment. The amount which is not payable in terms of employment, but which is paid through oversight or extra, cannot be said to be an amount of wage which was payable. Therefore, the question whether amount paid on account of backward area allowance for the month of March is not said to have been paid for the month of february, question becomes germane and relevant. Whether such allowance the employee was entitled to receive for the month of March in terms of his employment or not? ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, the order rejecting approval cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. However, as the question requires further investigation into the material on record and its correctness. I deem it proper not to adjudicate upon that matter herein and direct the Conciliation Officer to consider the application within a month from the date of receipt of this order, after taking into consideration the relevant materials in accordance with law. He may permit parties to produce any further material in support of their rival contentions regarding entitlement or otherwise of any sum payable or deductible. ( 9 ) WITH the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute, with no order as to costs. .