JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The petitioner in the writ petition (Civil), W.P.(C) No.32954/2019 has filed the instant intracourt appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 08.02.2021, rendered by the learned Single Judge which has led to the dismissal of the abovesaid writ petition. 2. Heard Sri. Sabu M. Philip, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the writ appeal/petitioner in the writ petition (civil) and Sri. Deepu Thankan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) appearing for the respondents in the writ appeal/respondents in the writ petition (civil). 3. The appellant/petitioner has been appointed as reserve conductor in the service of the respondent Kerala State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 22.12.2018 and later he was ordered to be suspended from service as per the impugned Ext.P1 proceedings dated 17.04.2019, issued by the Executive Director (Vigilance) of the respondent KSRTC. 4. The main allegations raised in Ext.P1, is in relation to the effect that pursuant to the surprise inspection conducted in the bus in which he was working as reserve conductor on the day in question, it was found that one of the passengers was found to be travelling in the said bus but without a ticket. 5. It is now common ground that subsequently the respondents have reviewed the suspension order at Ext.P1 and have reinstated the appellant in service on 19.08.2019, pending disciplinary proceedings. The only grievance of the petitioner raised in this case is regarding the non-payment of subsistence allowance to him during the period of his suspension. 6. The main objection raised by the respondent KSRTC is to the effect that as the petitioner is only a reserve conductor he is not a regular employee in the respondent-KSRTC and therefore the provisions in Rule 55 of Part-I Kerala Service Rules (KSR) will not be applicable to him and therefore his claim for subsistence allowance based on Rule 55 of Part-I KSR is untenable. 7. The learned Single Judge has accepted the said contention of the respondents and has thus dismissed the writ petition. 8. There is no serious factual dispute that the petitioner was, in fact, working only as a reserve conductor in the service of the respondent Corporation and that he is not a regular employee of the respondent Corporation. 7. The learned Single Judge has accepted the said contention of the respondents and has thus dismissed the writ petition. 8. There is no serious factual dispute that the petitioner was, in fact, working only as a reserve conductor in the service of the respondent Corporation and that he is not a regular employee of the respondent Corporation. If that be so, at best, the respondent Corporation can contend that the provisions in KSR will not apply to regulate his suspension aspects. But even in that contingency, there cannot be any dispute that the provisions contained in the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 (State Act 27 of 1973) will then be applicable. 9. The Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 (State Act 27 of 1973) is an Act made by the State Legislature to provide for payment of subsistence allowance to the employees in certain establishments during the period of suspension. The preamble to the said Act declares that it is expedient to provide for the payment of subsistence allowance to the employees in certain establishments during the period of suspension. Section 2 of the said Act deals with definition clauses. Section 2(a) defines 'employee' as follows:- “2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) "employee" means any person employed in or in connection with the work of any establishment to do skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical, clerical or any other kind of work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, but does not include any such person who is employed mainly in a managerial or an administrative capacity or as an outworker, that is to say, a person to whom any articles or materials are given out by or on behalf of the employer to be cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented or repaired by such outworker in any place not under the control and management of the employer;” Section 2(b) defines 'employer' as follows:- “2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) xxxxxx (b) "employer" means the owner of an establishment and includes any person responsible to the owner for supervision and control of the establishment;” Section 2(c) defines 'establishment' as follows:- “2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) xxxxxx (b) "employer" means the owner of an establishment and includes any person responsible to the owner for supervision and control of the establishment;” Section 2(c) defines 'establishment' as follows:- “2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) xxxxxx (b) xxxxxx (c) "establishment" means any place where any industry, trade, business, undertaking, manufacture, occupation or service is carried on, but does not include any office or department of any Government or any establishment of any railway, major port, mine or oilfield;” 10. Going by the terms of appointment of the petitioner as a reserve conductor, there cannot be any serious dispute that such a person should be treated as an 'employee' as understood in Sec.2(a) of the Act. So also the respondent Corporation, which is the employer of the reserve conductor would fall within the definition of employer as understood in Sec.2(b) of the Act. Then the only other issue to be examined is as to whether the establishment of the respondent KSRTC would fulfill the definition of 'establishment' as defined in Sec.2(c) of the Act. Sec.2(c) of the Act defines 'establishment' as any place where any industry, trade, business, undertaking, manufacture, occupation or service is carried out, but does not include any office or department of any Government or any establishment of any railway, major port, mine or oilfield. 11. Going by the nature of work to be performed in the establishment of the respondent KSRTC, there cannot be any serious dispute that the first limb of the definition of Sec.2(c) would be attracted in this case. Then, what is to be examined is as to whether the establishment of the respondent KSRTC would fall within the exclusionary clause which is in the second limb of Sec.2(c). The only categories of establishment which are excluded therefrom are only those offices or departments of any Government or any establishments of any railway, major port, mine or oilfield. 12. The respondent-KSRTC is an independent statutory corporation established in terms of the provisions contained in the Road Transport Corporation's Act, enacted by the Parliament. Hence the respondent corporation cannot be said to be an office or department of any Government including the Government of Kerala. So also, the establishment of the KSRTC cannot be said to be in relation to any railway, port, major port, mine or oilfield. Hence the respondent corporation cannot be said to be an office or department of any Government including the Government of Kerala. So also, the establishment of the KSRTC cannot be said to be in relation to any railway, port, major port, mine or oilfield. So it can be seen that the exclusionary clause which is in the second limb of Sec.2(c) is not attracted in this case. At the same time, the inclusionary clause which is in the first limb of Sec.2(c) is definitely attracted. If that be so, the establishment of the respondent-KSRTC would certainly fulfill the definition of 'establishment' as understood in Sec.2(c) of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. 13. By virtue of the statutory powers conferred on the respondent-KSRTC, they have adopted the provisions in the Kerala Service Rules (KSR), as far as regular employees are concerned. Hence, as far as regular employees are concerned they may be regulated by the provisions contained in KSR as regards the matters relating to suspension, subsistence allowances, etc. But in the case of reserve conductors who are not regular employees, they are not covered by the provisions of KSR. Then certainly the provisions contained in the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 would come in to play. Section 3 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, provides as follows:- “Sec.3. Payment of subsistence allowance.— (I) 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 (a) where the period of suspension exceeds ninety days, the amount of subsistence allowance shall, for the period exceeding ninety days, be seventy-five per cent of the wages; and (b) Where the period of suspension exceeds one hundred and eighty days, the amount of subsistence allowance shall, for the period exceeding one hundred and eighty days, be equal to be 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. 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. (2) An employee shall not in any event be liable to refund or forfeit any part of the subsistence allowance admissible to him under sub-section (1), but when an employee is exonerated of the charge which caused his suspension, the subsistence allowance paid to him for any period shall be adjusted against the full wages admissible to him for the same period. (3) Where any employee has been placed under suspension before the commencement of this Act and such suspension is in force at such commencement, he shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension on the date of such commencement.” 14. So, it is only to be held that even if the provisions contained in Part-I KSR, more particularly Rule 55 thereof are not applicable in the case of a reserve conductor as he/she may not be a regular employee of the respondent Corporation, still the respondent corporation will be liable to pay subsistence allowance to a reserve conductor, who is suspended from service in terms of the mandate contained in Sec.3 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. The legal position in that regard is declared. 15. Sri. Deepu Thankan, learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC appearing for the respondent would fairly submit that necessary instructions will be given to the respondents to ensure that the subsistence allowances due to the petitioner for the period from the date of his suspension upto the date of his reinstatement is paid strictly in terms of the provisions contained in Sec.3 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, within 6 weeks' time. We record the abovesaid undertaking made on behalf of the respondents. 16. Accordingly it is ordered that the subsistence allowance due to the appellant for the period from the date of his suspension upto his date of reinstatement shall be paid by the competent official among the respondents in terms of Sec.3 of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972, within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 17. 17. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 08.02.2021 of the learned Single Judge, dismissing W.P.(C) No.32954/2019 will stand set aside. With these observations and directions the above writ appeal will stand finally disposed of.