JUDGMENT 1. THIS Rule is against the orders dated 14. 1. 75 and 22. 7. 75 passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. By the earlier order, the Authority held that the application filed by the employee was maintainable. By the last order the Authority found that the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs. 9357. 50 P as his overtime wages as claimed in the claim petition filed before the Authority being P. W. A. Case No. 267 of 1968. 2. THE petitioner claiming to be a durwan of the B. C. Roy Polio Clinic and Hospital for crippled children made an application for payment of overtime wages for various periods mentioned in the petition. Though the period of claim started from 26th November, 1958 to 7th September, 1965, the application was filed on or about l5th July, 1968. In explaining the delay in filing the application, the employee stated that he was asked to perform extra duties by the Superintendent of the Clinic and he performed his duties accordingly. Thereafter, he requested the Superintendent to grant him extra wages for his extra duty and he was assured of such payment. But later on the opposite parties, namely, the Superintendent of the Clinic as also the State of West Bengal declined to make the payment and in that situation the delay was caused. The claim was laid at Rs. 9357. 50 P. By an order dated 20. 11. 69, the Authority held that the application was wrote maintainable on the preliminary issue. Against the decision, the employee came up before this court in C. R. 1. 793 of 1970 and a Division Bench of this court in course of judgment noted that there was a Notification being Government Notification No. 6688 L. W. dated 30th December, 1968 (Vide Calcutta Gazette dated 12th January, 1967 Part I Page 111) whereby the Act was extended to "industrial establishments" as defined in sub-section (1) of section 2 (ii) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. This Court observed that the Authority in deciding the preliminary issue expressed the view that though the institution may be an industry but still it would not be an industrial establishment covered by the above statute. This Court observed that the Authority in deciding the preliminary issue expressed the view that though the institution may be an industry but still it would not be an industrial establishment covered by the above statute. As this conclusion was not clear the court felt that the case should be sent back to the said Authority for a proper decision on the preliminary point of jurisdiction after giving the parties opportunities to adduce further evidence in support of their respective cases. Such additional evidence with the evidence already on record was directed to be taken into consideration in coming to a final decision on the preliminary point. The case on remand came up for consideration before the Authority again and the Authority held by the order dated 14th January, 1975 that the Polio Clinic was functioning as an industrial establishment for all practical purposes. 3. THEREAFTER, the Authority directed the employer to file their written statement though it may be noted that the written statement was already filed at the very initial stage of the proceeding. It however appears that on subsequent dates, no one appeared on behalf of the employer and, ultimately, the case came up for hearing ex parte on July 22, 1975. On that date further evidence was adduced by the employee in support of his claim and the Authority on the view that such evidence was unchallenged, gave a decree in his favour. The application was allowed accordingly for the amount of claim of Rs. 9357. 50 P. being the unpaid over-time wages together with Rs. 25/- as compensation. Against this order and also the earlier order of 14. 1. 75, the State of West Bengal as also the Superintendent of the Clinic moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution on 5th January, 1976 whereon the instant Rule was issued. 4. MR. P. K. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners aforesaid has submitted that though the application was filed after such a long period of time, there was no order of the Authority condoning the delay as was required under the proviso to subsection (2) of section 15 of the said Act. It does not appear from record that there was, in fact, such an order and this must have been overlooked by the Authority when he took up the matter of maintainability of the application. It does not appear from record that there was, in fact, such an order and this must have been overlooked by the Authority when he took up the matter of maintainability of the application. As the point of maintainability was considered in presence of the parties, we do not propose to enter further on this aspect of the question. The point for consideration is whether the provision of this Act would be applicable to the Clinic of the nature we are concerned with. As we have seen the Act applies apart from factory to such an industrial establishment to which it may be extended by Government Notification. Under the Notification which was noted by this Court as stated above the workshop or other establishment in which articles are produced, adapted or manufactured, with a view to their Use, transport or sale is an industrial establishment to which the provision of the Act was extended. It is in evidence that in the Clinic medicinal mixtures are prepared as also X-ray Photographs, are taken for their use. Accordingly, it seems that in this Clinic articles are adapted or manufactured with a view to their use by general public and in the context of these circumstances, the Clinic would come within the definition and ambit of the industrial establishment as defined in clause (f) of sub-section (ii) of section 2 of the said Act. The application accordingly for payment of wages admissible under the Act would thus be maintainable before the Authority. To this extent we are in agreement with the order of the Authority dated 14th January, 1975 though for different reasons as indicated above. 5. UNDER the Act, remuneration for over-time work as defined in subsection (vi) of section 2 of the said Ant is included within "wages". The definition is as follows: " (vi) "wages" means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, allowances or otherwise)expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes:- (b) any remuneration to which the person employed is entitled in respect of overtime work or holidays or any leave period. " 6. " 6. THE petitioner in his application for wages has stated that he was asked to do extra work and he was assured by the Superintendent that he would be given extra wages for the same. It has not been pleaded or claimed that it was a term of his employment or otherwise that he would be required to perform extra duties for which extra wages would be paid. As we have already stated, his case was that when he requested the Superintendent to grant extra wages for extra duty he was assured of such payment. In evidence both on the earlier occasion as also when the matter was heard ex-parte, it is nowhere the easel or evidence of the employee that it was a term of such employment that he would be required, to serve extra duty and that he would be paid for such extra duty. As we have already seen, under the said Act it is a condition precedent to enable an employee to obtain a decree that he is entitled to the wages that are being claimed. In absence of any such case or evidence that he was entitled to such over-time wages, the Authority committed serious material error in its exercise of jurisdiction in decreeing the claim without any finding on this point. In fact, no finding was possible in absence of claim or evidence on this aspect. Accordingly, we are of opinion that the Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction in awarding the decree, claimed for, when there was no requisite case or evidence on the basic factor on which the employee would be entitled to a decree. For all these reasons, it is not possible to sustain the decree that has been passed by the Tribunal. We accordingly set aside the order dated 22. 7. 75 and make the Rule absolute to the extent as indicated above, while we are affirming the finding arrived at by the Authority on the question of maintainability as per order dated 14. 1. 75 though for different reasons above. There would be no order as to costs.