JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions No. 3 to 9 of 1971. ( 2. ) THE petitioner in each case is workers union. The Union filed seven applications each under section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act against illegal deductions being made by the employer from the wages of the workman named in each case. The deductions are alleged to have been made in respect of the extra wages to which the workmen claimed to be entitled on account of they having worked on the day of rest. Separate application on behalf of the workers were made grouping in one application only those workman whose day of rest fell on the same day of the week. All these applications were allowed by the authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act. Thereafter seven separate appeals, one arising from each application, were filed by respondent No. 1 in the industrial Court under section 17 of the Payment of Wages act, 1936. These appeals have been allowed and the case has been remanded for a fresh decision by the authority with advertence to the observations made by the Industrial Court. These petitions, one arising from each case, are for quashing the Industrial Courts order. ( 3. ) THE workers claim substantially is for one days extra wages in accordance with section 26 (1) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for each notified day of rest on which the worker worked being required to do so by the employer, notwithstanding the fact that a substituted day of rest was given to him in lieu thereof as required by law. The claim is in respect of such days of rest falling within the period commencing from 1-2-1967 and ending on 31-1-1968. The claim was filed in each case on 20-3-1968 so that there is some dispute between the parties also on the question of limitation, which is provided by the proviso under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. The claim was filed in each case on 20-3-1968 so that there is some dispute between the parties also on the question of limitation, which is provided by the proviso under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. However, we need not go into the question of limitation, since this question appears to have been raised for the first time only in appeal before the Industrial Court and the same has yet to be decided, the Industrial Court having directed the authority on remand to decide this question as well, which depends for its determination on a disputed question of fact with regard to the date on which wages were paid each month to the workers. ( 4. ) THE only point for our determination is :-Whether in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 26 of the Motor transport Workers Act, 1961, the worker is entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages in respect of the work done by him on the day of rest, even though for his having worked on the day of rest he has been given a substituted day of rest on some other day? ( 5. ) THE contention of the employer is that on a substituted day of rest being given to the worker in lieu of his being required to work on the notified day of rest, sub-section (1) of section 26 has no application so that he is not entitled to the additional wages of one day at the ordinary rate in accordance with this provision. In other words, the employer contends that such extra wages for one day are required to be given to the worker only if he is not given a substituted day of rest on some other day. On the other hand, the petitioners case is that the benefit available to the workers by virtue of sub-section (1) of section 26 of the Act is independent of the legal requirement of a substituted day of rest being given to a worker, who is called upon by the employer to work on a notified day of rest. The employers contention was rejected by the authority but has been accepted, on appeal, by the Industrial Court. It is this question which we have to examine. ( 6. ) THE relevant provisions may now be quoted. The employers contention was rejected by the authority but has been accepted, on appeal, by the Industrial Court. It is this question which we have to examine. ( 6. ) THE relevant provisions may now be quoted. Section 19 of the Motor transport Workers Act is as under :- "19. Weekly rest:- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official gazette, make rules providing for a day of rest in every period of seven days, which shall be allowed to all motor transport workers. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) an employer may, in order to prevent any dislocation of a motor transport service, require a motor transport worker to work on any day of rest which is not a holiday so, however, that the motor transport worker does not work for more than ten days consecutively without a holiday for a whole day intervening. (3) * * *" Section 26 of the Act is as under:- "26. Extra wages for overtime:- (1) Where an adult motor transport worker works for more than eight hours in any day in any case referred to in the first proviso to section 13 or where he is required to work on any day of rest under sub-section (2) of section 19, he shall be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages in respect of the overtime work or the work done on the day of rest, as the case may be. (2) * * * (3) * * * (4) * * *" Rule 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Transport Workers Rules, 1963 is as under:- "29. Weekly Rest:- (1) No motor transport worker shall be required or allowed to work on a day of rest fixed for him (hereinafter referred to as the said day) unless:- (a) he has or will have a holiday for a whole day (hereinafter called the substituted day) on one of the three days immediately before or after the said day, and (b) * * * (2) * * * (3) Where in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1) any motor transport worker works on the said day and has had a holiday on one of the three days immediately before it, that the said day shall, for the purpose of calculating his weekly hours of work, be included in the immediately preceding week. " ( 7. ) SUB-SECTION (1) of section 19 of the Act enables the State Government to provide for a day of rest in every period of seven days by making rules which are notified in the official Gazette. There is no dispute that the weekly rest in case of each set of workmen has been fixed accordingly. Sub-section (2) of section 19 which begins with a non obstante clause overrides sub-section (1) of provide for the prevention of dislocation of a motor transport services. For this purpose, it is laid down in sub-section (2) that a worker may be called upon by his employer to work on any such notified day of rest subject to two conditions. These conditions are that the worker shall not be called upon in this manner to work on a holiday and that he does not work continuously for 10 days without one full days holiday intervening during a consecutive period of 10 days. Thus, section 19 in sub-section (1) lays down the requirement of one full days rest during every period of 7 days but then in sub-section (2) it enables the employer to call upon a worker to work also on such day of rest subject to the conditions already pointed out. In this manner an attempt has been made to ensure weekly rest for each worker while providing means to avoid dislocation of transport service. Sub-section (1) of section 26, however, is enacted for a different purpose and is concerned only with the wages of the workman. There is nothing in sub-section (1) of section 26 to read any limitation therein subject to which alone the benefit has been given to the worker. In the absence of any express limitation being provided in sub-section (1) of section 26, it has to be seen whether such limitation can be imported by reference to sub-section (2) of section 19 on which the employer relied to support his contention. In our opinion, sub-section (2) of section 19 is of no assistance in this respect since these two provisions operate in distinct spheres. In our opinion, sub-section (2) of section 19 is of no assistance in this respect since these two provisions operate in distinct spheres. Sub-section (2) of section 19 enables the employer to call upon a worker to work even on a notified day of rest subject to the conditions mentioned therein in order to avoid dislocation of transport service and to that extent it overrides the provisions in sub-section (1)of section 19 which enjoins a duty on each employer to give one full days rest to every worker in every period of 7 days. Thus, section 19 deals only with the period for which the worker can be required by the employer to work at a stretch without any holiday. On the other hand, sub-section (1) of section 26 provides for a consequence when a workman has been called upon by his employer to work on a notified day of rest. This consequence is that for working on the notified day of rest in such a manner, the workman becomes entitled to twice the ordinary wages for that day since ordinarily the workman was entitled not to work on that day. The further duty imposed on the employer to give such a workman a substituted day of rest is by virtue of the conditions imposed on him by sub-section (2) of section 19 and Rule 29 (1) of the Rules quoted above. The liability of the employer in this respect is independent of the volition of the workman so that the fact that he accepted a substituted day of rest is of no consequence in deciding this question. There can be no doubt that the requirement to give a substituted day of rest in accordance with the provisions of law has no relevance for deciding this question. ( 8. ) THE result is that the judgment of the Industrial Court discloses an error apparent, which has resulted from a wrong construction being made of sub-section (1) of section 26 of the Act. The judgment has, therefore, to be set aside. ( 9. ) CONSEQUENTLY, these petitions succeed and hereby allowed with costs. The judgment of the Industrial Court in each a set aside. These cases shall now go back to the Industrial Court for deciding the appeals afresh on the remaining questions. Counsels fee Rs. 50 if certified. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. ( 9. ) CONSEQUENTLY, these petitions succeed and hereby allowed with costs. The judgment of the Industrial Court in each a set aside. These cases shall now go back to the Industrial Court for deciding the appeals afresh on the remaining questions. Counsels fee Rs. 50 if certified. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.