JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against an interim order passed by Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936/Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P. Gorakhpur in Case No. D.C.P.W.-37 of 1998, Samiullah and 85 others v. General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur and four others, dated 22.9.1999 holding the case to be maintainable before it. The 86 employees of the North East Railways had claimed running allowance from May, 1997 till November, 1998. 3. During arguments learned counsel for respondents stated that w.e.f. December, 1998 running allowance was paid to the employees, however it was stopped through order dated 31.10.2008 and recovery of the payment of the said allowances paid in the past was also directed to be made. Against the said order claim has been filed before Administrative Tribunal. Para-9 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit on behalf of petitioners and para-5 of supplementary counter affidavit in which it has been stated that before C.A.T., Allahabad, respondents have filed O.A. No. 167 of 2009 against order dated 31.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri A.K. Gaur has also argued that the claim was barred by the provisions of Administrative Tribunals Act and it ought to have been filed before Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. As far as the last argument is concerned, it is concluded by the authority of the Supreme Court reported in Krishna Prasad Gupta v. Controller, AIR 1996 SC 408 , holding that jurisdiction of the authority to entertain claim cases under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act is not affected by establishment of Administrative Tribunal as the authority falls within the exception indicated under Section 28 of Administrative Tribunals Act. The said authority has been referred to in the subsequent authority of the Supreme Court reported in Ajay D. Panalkar v. Management of Pune Telecom Department, AIR 1999 SC 538 . 5. The authority below mentioned in its order that the main argument of the opposite parties petitioners was that the wages of each applicant were more than Rs. 1600/- per month hence by virtue of its Section 1(6), Payment of Wages Act was not applicable. 5. The authority below mentioned in its order that the main argument of the opposite parties petitioners was that the wages of each applicant were more than Rs. 1600/- per month hence by virtue of its Section 1(6), Payment of Wages Act was not applicable. In reply to this, applicants workmen placed reliance upon the notifications dated 13.3.1978 and 14.10.1987 issued by the U.P. State Government under Section 22-F of Minimum Wages Act through which on certain establishments only some provisions of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 were made applicable i.e. Sections 15, 16, 17, 17-A, 18 & 26 with some modifications and through the said notifications Section 1(6) of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was not made applicable. Copies of these notifications are Annexure-CA-4 & 4-A to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. In the list of the establishments over which through notification dated 14.10.1987, provisions of Sections 15, 16, 17, 17-A, 18 & 26 were made applicable item No. 62 is of registered factories which have not earlier been mentioned. The question is whether Railway factories are covered by that or not. Railway is mentioned in Payment of Wages Act itself by virtue of its Section 1(4), which is quoted below: “(4) It applies in the first instance to the payment of wages to persons employed in any factory, to persons employed (otherwise than in a factory) upon any railway by a railway administration or, either directly or through a sub-contractor, by a person fulfilling a contract with a railway administration and to persons employed in an industrial or other establishment specified in sub-clauses (a) to (g) of clause (ii) of Section 2.” 6. Neither under Payment of Wages Act nor under Minimum Wages Act, there is any provision under which by issuing notification, Government can apply Payment of Wages Act where wages are more than Rs. 1600/- per month. Accordingly, I do not agree with the view of the authority below that the matter was cognizable by it under Payment of Wages Act. 7. For claiming running allowance for the subsequent period i.e. from November, 2008 onward dispute has been raised before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in the form of O.A. No. 167 of 2009. 1600/- per month. Accordingly, I do not agree with the view of the authority below that the matter was cognizable by it under Payment of Wages Act. 7. For claiming running allowance for the subsequent period i.e. from November, 2008 onward dispute has been raised before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in the form of O.A. No. 167 of 2009. Accordingly, the workmen are at liberty to add the prayer for claiming running allowance for the period in question i.e. from May, 1997 till November, 1998 in their pending O.A. No. 167 of 2009 before C.A.T., Allahabad. If such an application is filed within two months from today it shall be allowed. 8. The case before the authority below under Payment of Wages Act shall be consigned to record and no further proceedings in the said case be taken. 9. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. ——————