ORDER : 1. With the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is a retired Assistant from Thiruvallur Municipality. When she was working as Revenue Inspector in Avadi Municipality, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against her in TDP Case No. 35/2007 RC A1/1382/07 on 02.04.2008. The second respondent, placing reliance on the findings rendered by the Commissioner of Disciplinary Proceedings in the final report dated 23.12.2010 and after giving opportunity to the petitioner, passed the order dated 29.05.2012 in ROC No. 28213/2005/OP-3, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one month without cumulative effect and also made it clear that the penalty will not affect the pension of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was kept under suspension from 20.04.2005 to 12.12.2007 during the disciplinary proceeding. By the order dated 28.03.2013 in ROC No. 28213/2005/OP-3, the said period of suspension was regularized by the second respondent and a direction was issued to the third respondent to draw and disburse the arrears of pay due to the petitioner for the period of suspension, which was regularized. 4. Now the petitioner claims that she shall be paid full salary without with out deducting or adjusting the subsistence allowance that was paid to her for the period of suspension. 5. While the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 2-rr of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for his claim that the petitioner shall be paid full salary without deducting the subsistence allowance, the same is stoutly opposed by the learned Special Government Pleader. He also relied on Rule 54-B-1(1), (3) and (4) of the Fundamental Rules. 6. In support of his claim, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the following judgments: (1) E.S.I.C. vs. Management of Kirloskar Systems Ltd. (1984) ILR (Kar) 965 (2) Karnataka Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Karpi, (1986) ILR (Kar) 3794 (3) Madhav Prasad Chaudhary vs. Union of India, (1991) 16 Administrative Tribunals Cases 786 (4) Syed Ali Qambar vs. State of Bihar and Others (5) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Poultry Development Corporation Ltd. vs. G. Jeelendran and Another, (2002) 4 LLJ 26 7. The learned Special Government Pleader brought to my notice that in the representation dated 31.05.2013, the petitioner herself claimed full backwages excluding subsistence allowance. 8. I have considered the submissions made by either sides. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader brought to my notice that in the representation dated 31.05.2013, the petitioner herself claimed full backwages excluding subsistence allowance. 8. I have considered the submissions made by either sides. 9. The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to full backwages without adjusting or deducting subsistence allowance that was paid to her during the period of suspension, i.e. from 20.04.2005 to 12.12.2007 or not? 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as follows: 2(rr). "wages" means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes:- (i) such allowances (including dearness allowance) as the workman is for the time being entitled to. (ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service or of any concessional supply of food-grains or other articles. (iii) any traveling concession. (iv) any commission payable on the promotion of sales or business or both; but does not include:- (a) any bonus. (b) any contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or for the benefit of the workman under any law for the time being in force. (c) any gratuity payable on the termination of his service. 11. Firstly, it is doubtful as to whether the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applicable to the petitioner herein, who was working as Revenue Inspector in the Thiruvallur Municipality. Furthermore, Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that is extracted above, nowhere contemplates payment of full wages without adjusting subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, when a workman was placed under suspension, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. It is relevant to note that as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1946 that defines "Workman" is incorporated as Section 2(i) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It is relevant to note that as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1946 that defines "Workman" is incorporated as Section 2(i) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. In fact, third proviso to Clause 4(c) of Clause 17 of the Model Standing Orders Applicable to Workmen framed under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, makes it very clear that the workman covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, is entitled to salary for the period of suspension, after adjusting the subsistence allowance that was paid during the suspension period pending disciplinary action. 12. Third proviso to Clause 4(c) of Clause 17 of the Model Standing Orders Applicable to Workmen framed under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, reads as follows: 17. Punishment for misconduct - (4)(c) If on the conclusion of the inquiry or, as the case may be, of the criminal proceedings, the workman has been found guilty of any of the charges framed against him and it is considered, after giving the workman concerned a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed that an order of dismissal or suspension or fine or stoppage of annual increment or reduction in rank would meet the ends of justice, the employer shall pass an order accordingly: ......... Provided also that where an order imposing fine or stoppage of annual increment or reduction in rank is passed under this clause, the workman shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension and shall be entitled to the same wages as he would have received if he had not been placed under suspension, after deducting the subsistence allowance paid to him for such period. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on Rule 54-B-1(1), (3) and (4) of the Fundamental Rules, which reads as follows: 54-B-1. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation or compulsory retirement while under suspension, the authority competent to order instatement shall consider and make a specific order:- (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation or compulsory retirement, as the case may be. (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (3) Whether the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended; (4) In a case falling under sub-rule (3), the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. 14. While proviso to clause 17(4)(c) of the Model Standing Orders, referred to above, provides absolute right to workman to claim wages for the period of suspension after adjusting subsistence allowance if a punishment of increment cut was imposed on him, for a government servant even no such absolute right is given under Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules. As per Rule 54-B-1(1), it is left to the discretion of the concerned authority to decide about the pay and allowance for the period of suspension relating to disciplinary action of a government servant. In fact in the cases covered under Rule 54-B-1(3) of the Fundamental Rules, the authority competent shall come to a opinion that the suspension made was wholly unjustifiable. If one reads Rule 54-B-1(1), (3) and (4) of the Fundamental Rules, the reasonable construction that could be placed on the same is that the government servant is entitled to salary for the period of suspension after adjusting the subsistence allowance. But in this case, the authority did not pass order under Clause 54-B-1(3) holding that the suspension was wholly unjustified. Even in those cases, no government servant would get salary for the period of suspension without adjusting the subsistence allowance that was already paid for the period of suspension. 15. In this case, the order is passed under Rule 54-B-1(1). In fact, the authority has discretion even to deny the full wages under Rule 54-B. The authority in this case was good enough in granting full pay for the period of suspension. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner herself in her letter dated 31.05.2013 claimed wages after adjusting subsistence allowance. But now the petitioner seeks in this writ petition wages for the period of suspension without adjusting subsistence allowance. In my view, the same has no merit. 16. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner herself in her letter dated 31.05.2013 claimed wages after adjusting subsistence allowance. But now the petitioner seeks in this writ petition wages for the period of suspension without adjusting subsistence allowance. In my view, the same has no merit. 16. If the claim of the petitioner is accepted, she will be paid more than the salary of a person who did not face disciplinary action and did not suffer any punishment. Hence, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner is totally absurd. It is the admitted fact that she also suffered punishment that attained finality, as the punishment order was not challenged by the petitioner. Further, the order dated 28.03.2013 of the second respondent under Rule 54-B-1(1) of the Fundamental Rules is also not challenged. 17. None of the judgments, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, arose out Rule 54(B) of the Fundamental Rules, and nowhere lays down that the government servant, who suffered punishment, is entitled to full wages for the period of suspension without deducting or adjusting subsistence allowance and that those judgments have no relevance to the issue in question. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.