JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an award made by the Authority under the Minimum Wages act, 1948, on 27 December 1977 allowing Rs. 3,455. 85 p. as overtime wages to respondents 2 to 16 who are the employees in Amardeep Talkies, Raipur. Petitioner No. 1 is a partner of M/s. Amardeep Talkies and petitioner No. 2 is the Manager of the Talkies. The points invovled in this petition are whether the provision for payment of overtime wages to employees who work for more than 48 hours in a week contained in Rule 27 of the Minimum Wages (Madhya pradesh) Rules, 1958, is valid and whether it applies to the employees employed in a theatre. The petitioners claim is that they are entitled to take 54 hours of work in a week from an employee at the ordinary rate of wages without any liability to pay any overtime wages. ( 2. ) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition is that Rule 27 of the Minimum Wages Rules is an excess of the rule making power contained in section 30 of the Minimum Wages act. The argument is that section 13 of the act provides for fixing of the number of hours of work for a normal working day. and section 14 provides for overtime payment when an employee works on any day in excess of the number of hours constituting a normal working day, and that the Act does not contemplate fixing of the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working week and, therefore, Rule 27 of the Rules, in so far as it makes provision for payment of overtime wages if an employee works for more than 48 hours in a week, goes beyond the power conferred on the rule making authority under section 30 of the Act. ( 3. ) IN order to appreciate this argument, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 13 of the Act, in so far as relevant, provides that in regard to any scheduled employment the appropriate Government may "fix the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day, inclusive of one or more specified intervals". ) IN order to appreciate this argument, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 13 of the Act, in so far as relevant, provides that in regard to any scheduled employment the appropriate Government may "fix the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day, inclusive of one or more specified intervals". Section 14 requires that where an employee, whose minimum rates of wages are fixed under the Act, "works on any day in excess of the number of hours constituting a normal working day the employer shall pay him for every hour or part of an hour so worked in excess, at the overtime rate so fixed under this Act or under any law of the appropriate Government for time being in force whichever is higher". The rule making power is conferred on the Government under section 30 of the act. Section 30 (1) empowers the appropriate Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 30 (2) specifically empowers the appropriate Government to make rules to prescribe the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day". In exercise of its rule making power, the State Government made the Minimum Wages ( Madhya pradesh ) Rules, 1958 Rule 25, in so far as material, provides that the number of hours which shall constitute a normal working day shall be,- in the case of an adult,-9 hours. " Rule 27 provides that "when a worker works in an employment for more than the number of hours of work constituting a normal working day as prescribed under rule 25,- or for more than 48 hours in a week, he shall in respect of the overtime work, be entitled to wages- at double the ordinary rates of wages". ( 4. ) FOR determining the validity of Rule 27 it is necessary to see as to what it really means. Having regard to the context in which they occur, Rules 25 and 27 have to be read together. Read together, these rules lay down that the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day shall be 9 hours, subject to this that the total number of work in a week shall not exceed 48 hours. Having regard to the context in which they occur, Rules 25 and 27 have to be read together. Read together, these rules lay down that the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day shall be 9 hours, subject to this that the total number of work in a week shall not exceed 48 hours. In other words, the Rules say that if in a week with one weekly holiday the employee works on all the working days, the normal working day shall consist of 8 hours; but if the employee is absent on one or more working days, or it there is more than one holiday in a week, the normal working day shall consist of 9 hours of work. Understood in this way, the provision in rule 27 for payment of overtime wages to an employee who works for more than 48 hours in a week is not a provision fixing the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day. Read along with Rule 25, it it really a provision fixing 8 or 9 hours of a work to constitute a normal working day, depending upon whether the employee works for six days in a week or for less than 6 days in a week In dealing with the corresponding Central Rules the Supreme Court in Workmen, Bombay Port Trust v. Trustees of Bombay port, (AIR 1966 S C 1201, p. 1205.) observed as follows : "as there is a prescribed day of rest in a week we get a working week of six days with a maximum of 48 hours work. Average duration of actual work payable at ordinary rate of wages per day thus comes to 8 hours. Thus if an employer takes actual work for 8 hours per day on 6 days in a week he complies with all the provisions and need not pay overtime. He may go up to 9 hours on any day without paying any overtime provided he does not exceed 48 hours in the week. " These observations which apply also for the construction of the State Rules as they are in pari materia with the Central Rules support our conclusion regarding the meaning of Rules 25 and 27. He may go up to 9 hours on any day without paying any overtime provided he does not exceed 48 hours in the week. " These observations which apply also for the construction of the State Rules as they are in pari materia with the Central Rules support our conclusion regarding the meaning of Rules 25 and 27. If these Rules are understood in the manner stated above, all that can be said is that the Government in fixing the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day has taken into account the weekly workload on the employee. In doing so, the government cannot be said to have exceeded its rule making power. As already seen, the Government can under section 30 (2) (g) by rules "prescribe the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day. " the Government has also the general power to make rules under section 30 (1)"for carrying out the purposes of the Act". The general rule making power in section 30 (1) is not controlled by the specific enumeration of the topics in section 30 (2), for it is well settled that if power is conferred to make subordinate legislation in general terms, the enumeration of topics is construed as merely illustrative and does not limit the scope of the general power. [see Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji (AIR 1945 P C 156, pp. 159, 160.) and Afzal Ullah v. State of Uttar Pradesh. (AIR 1964 S C 264, p. 268. ). ] The general power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act cannot, however, be used to widen the purposes of the Act or to add new and different means for carrying out or to depart from and vary its terms. [see Shanshan v. Scott, ( (1957) 96 C L R 245, p. 246.)approved in Utab Construction v. Pataky, ( (1965) 3 All E R 650 (P C) p. 653.)]. Subject to the above limitation, the general power is liberally construed and the opinion of the rule making authority that a rule made by it is to carry out the purposes of the Act is greatly respected. Subject to the above limitation, the general power is liberally construed and the opinion of the rule making authority that a rule made by it is to carry out the purposes of the Act is greatly respected. A rule made by an authority which has the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act will normally be declared invalid only on the following grounds : (1) Bad faith, that is to say that powers entrusted for one purpose, are deliberately used with the design of achieving another, itself unauthorised or actually forbidden; (2) that it shows on its face a misconstruction of the enabling Act or a failure to comply with the conditions which that Act has prescribed for the exercise of the powers; and (3) that it is not capable of being related to any of the purposes mentioned in the Act. [see attorney-General for Canada v. Hallat and Carry Ltd, ( (1952) A C 427 (P C) pp. 444, 445 and 450.), Hass Clunis v. Papa-jopullas, ( (1958) 2 All. E R 23 (P C ).); Mceldowney v. Forde, ( (1969) 2 All E R 1039 (H L ). ). ] Tested in the light of these principles, we are unable to hold that Rule 27 of the Rules is in any way in excess of the rule making power of the Government conferred on it by section 30 of the Act. The Act was enacted to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments in recognition of the new principles of social welfare and common good. As the minimum wages must bear relation to the workload, the Act makes provision for fixing the number of hours of work for a normal working day and for payment at overtime rate for extra work. As earlier stated by us, the conjoint operation of Rules 25 and 27 has the effect of fixing 8 or 9 hours of work for a normal working day depending upon whether the employee works for six or less than six days in a week. By taking into account the weekly load of work in fixing the hours of work for a normal working day, the Government has carried out the purposes of the Act and the rules are well within the rule making power conferred by section 30 (1) and section 30 (2) (g) of the Act. By taking into account the weekly load of work in fixing the hours of work for a normal working day, the Government has carried out the purposes of the Act and the rules are well within the rule making power conferred by section 30 (1) and section 30 (2) (g) of the Act. ( 5. ) THE second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 27 of the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh) Rules has no application to theaters. The argument in support of this contention is that in respect of the overtime wages theatres are governed by the Madhya Pradesh shops and Establishments Act, 1958, which having received the assent of the president must, in case of repugnancy, prevail over the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Rules made thereunder. ( 6. ) THE Minimum wages Act applies to scheduled employments. Theatre or any other place of public amusement of entertainment was till 1963 not included in the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act. Section 27 of the Act containing the power of the appropriate Government to add to the Schedule. The Madhya Pradesh Legislature passed the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961. By this Act, in place of original section 27, a new section was substituted. The new section provides that the state Government "after giving by notification not less than three months notice of its intention so to do may, by like notification,- (a) add to either part of the schedule, any employment in respect of which it is of the opinion that minimum rates of wages should be fixed under this Act; (b) modify or rescind any entry in either part of the schedule; and thereupon the schedule shall in its application to the State be deemed to be amended accordingly. " The Amend-ing Act by which section 27 was substituted by the State Legislature received the assent of the President on 6th June 1961 and came into force when the assent was first published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 23rd June 1961. In exercise of the power conferred by section 27, the State Government amended the Schedule by Notification No. 1206/315-XVr, dated 13th February 1963, and added the following as entry No. 20: - "20. In exercise of the power conferred by section 27, the State Government amended the Schedule by Notification No. 1206/315-XVr, dated 13th February 1963, and added the following as entry No. 20: - "20. Employment in any shop, commercial establishment, other than that covered under any of the other entries in this Schedule, residential hotel, restaurant or eating house, theatre or any other place of public amusement or entertainment. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Entry, the expressions shop, commercial establishment, residential hotel, restaurant or eating house and theatre shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958 (No. 25 of 1958 ). " As a result of the aforesaid notification, employment in theatre or any other place of public amusement or entertainment attracts the application of the minimum Wages Act. The Explanation to entry No. 20 refers to the definitions in the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958. Section 2 (26)of this Act defines "theatre" to include any premises intended principally or wholly for the exhibition of pictures or other optical effects by means of a cinematograph or other suitable apparatus or for a dramatic performance or for any other public amusement or entertainment. A cinema-hall clearly falls within this definition. It will be seen from the above that Rules 25 and 27 of the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh) Rules, read with sections 13 and 14 of the Minimum Wages Act, became applicable to the employment in a theatre by virtue of the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation)Act, 1961, and the action taken thereunder. ( 7. ) CHAPTER V of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958 deals with theatres or other places of public amusement or entertainment. Section 21 of this Act provides that no employee shall be required or allowed to work in any theatre or other place of amusement or entertainment for more than nine hours on any day. Section 55 of the Act makes provision for wages for overtime work. It says that where an employee in any establishment is required to work in excess of the limit of hours of work, he shall be entitled, in respect of the overtime work, to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages. ( 8. Section 55 of the Act makes provision for wages for overtime work. It says that where an employee in any establishment is required to work in excess of the limit of hours of work, he shall be entitled, in respect of the overtime work, to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages. ( 8. ) THE argument that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the rules made thereunder, in so far as they apply to theatres, are over-ridden by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act proceeds upon a complete misapprehension. First of all, we do not find any repugnancy between sections 13 and 14 of the Minimum Wages Act, read with Rules 25 and 27 of the Rules made thereunder, on the one hand, and sections 21 and 55 of the Shops and Establishments Act on the other. Section 21 of the Shops and Establishments Act fixes nine hours as the maximum daily hours of work in theatres. This is the import of the words "for more than nine hours on any day" as they occur in section 21. Fixing of daily hours of work below nine hours would, therefore, not be inconsistent or repugnant to section 21. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that Rules 25 and 27 of the Minimum wages Rules which, read together, have the effect of fixing 8 hours of work for a normal working day in a week with six working days are, in any way, repugnant to section 21 of the Shops and Establishments Act. Rule 27 of the minimum Wages Rules imposes the obligation to pay overtime wages at double the ordinary rates of wages in case of employment in theatres and the same rate is provided in section 55 of the Shops and Establishments Act. Here also there is no repugnancy. Repugnancy arises when the two sets of provisions cannot stand together or where one of them is exhaustive or covers the entire field. See Deen Chand v. State of U. P. , (AIR 1959 S C 648, p. 665.); State of Orissa v M. A. Tulloch andco. , (AIR 1964 S C 1284.); State of Haryana v. Chanan Mai, (AIR 1976 S C 1654. ). See Deen Chand v. State of U. P. , (AIR 1959 S C 648, p. 665.); State of Orissa v M. A. Tulloch andco. , (AIR 1964 S C 1284.); State of Haryana v. Chanan Mai, (AIR 1976 S C 1654. ). As section 21 of the Shops and establishments Act does not provide that the daily hours of work cannot be less than 9 hours, it cannot be said that it is exhaustive or covers the entire field on the subject of fixing of hours of work. As earlier stated by us, rules 25 and 27 of the Minimum Wages Rules and sections 21 and 55 of the shops and Establishments Act stand side by side, without there being any clash. There is, therefore, no repugnancy. The argument of repugnancy must also fail because the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the Rules made thereunder have, as earlier seen, been made applicable to the employment in theatres by an Act of the Madhya Pradesh State Legislature. The argument of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution has no application when the suggested repugnancy is between two Acts passed by the State Legislature itself. Repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution is contemplated between any existing law or law made by Parliament on the one hand, and law made by the State Legislature on the other. That is not the position in the instant case. Even if we are to hold that there is any inconsistency between the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and the Rules made thereunder on the one hand, and the Shops and Establishments Act on the other, the provisions of the former will prevail for the simple reason that the Minimum Wages (Madhya Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 1961, under which the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act were applied to theatres, is a later Act as against the Shops and Establishments Act, 1958. For the reasons stated above, the arguments based on repugnancy fail. ( 9. ) THE petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed.