Subsistence Allowance as Wages: A Controversial Issue
I would like to add that the treatment of subsistence allowance as wages remains an unresolved controversy due to two schools of thought based on the interpretation of the concept of wages concerning the contract of employment.
One view is that wages are the consideration, either monetary or capable of being expressed in terms of money, payable by the employer after the fulfillment of the terms of the contract by the employee. However, during suspension, the employee is not allowed to work and therefore loses the right to wages.
The counterpoint is that the contract of employment still subsists during the entire phase of suspension, and the non-performance of work by the employee is not voluntary or willful but simply imposed by the employer. Therefore, subsistence allowance should also be treated as wages.
My personal view is that the very name "subsistence allowance" indicates that it is only an allowance to keep the employee surviving and enable him to defend himself against the charges imputed against him. At the end of the day, if he is exonerated or awarded any punishment other than dismissal, he is going to be paid his normal wages after adjusting the subsistence allowance received so far. In this backdrop, for the purpose of deductions towards certain obligations under the law, the failure of which for the time being is not going to deprive him of certain benefits out of such contribution, they need not be deducted from the subsistence allowance.