JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relates to claim for wages for work done on rest day by employees of the m. P. State Road Transport Corporation at its Jabalpur Depot under the control of the Depot Manager, Jabalpur. ( 2. ) PETITIONER Kripa Shanker Verma at the relevant time was the Secretary of the registered trade union of the employees under the control of the depot Manager (respondent No. 1) of the M. P. State Road Transport corporation, Jabalpur. Fifty two employees claimed wages at double the ordinary rate of wages for the work done on rest days. On refusal to pay the amount so claimed, they authorised the petitioner to file claim before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act (respondent No. 2 ). The petitioner thereupon filed an application before respondent No. 2 claiming rs. 5,504. 98 as wages for work done on rest days at double the ordinary rate of wages together with a sum of Rs. 55049. 80 as compensation. During the proceedings before respondent No. 2, the employer conceded half the claim and made payment accordingly. Relying on a decision of a single Bench of this Court in V. K. Dutta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, C. R. No. 312 of 1966, decided on 12-1-1967. , the respondent No. 2 held that the employees were entitled to only to single rate of wage for the work done on rest days. On appeal by the petitioner before the Industrial court (respondent No. 3), it was held that no payment was due to the employees and that payment at a single rate of wage was in addition to normal monthly wages. According to respondent No. 3, the employees were thus paid at double the rate of wages for the work done on the rest days. The petitioner is dissatisfied with these orders of respondents 2 and 3. ( 3. ) SHRI Gulab Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the import of the term ordinary rate of wages has been misconstrued by the respondents and that the basis for calculating double the daily wages for working on a day of rest was erroneous. This contention, in our opinion, has substance. ( 3. ) SHRI Gulab Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the import of the term ordinary rate of wages has been misconstrued by the respondents and that the basis for calculating double the daily wages for working on a day of rest was erroneous. This contention, in our opinion, has substance. It was not disputed before us that the Motor Transport workers Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), was applicable to the workers employed in the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. It was also not disputed that the workers were entitled to additional payment for work done on the day of rest. The question only is how the wages for additional work done on the day of rest should be calculated. ( 4. ) SECTION 2 (f) of the Act defines hours of work to mean the time during which a motor transport worker is at the disposal of the employer or of any other person entitled to claim his services. Section 2 (1) of the Act provides that wages has the meaning as assigned to it in clause (vi) of section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Chapter V of the Act contains provisions regulating the hours of employment. Section 19, which falls under chapter V of the Act, defines the term weekly rest as under: "19. (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) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any motor transport worker whose total period of employment including any day spent on leave is less than six days. " Section 26 of the Act contains a provision for payment of extra wages for work done beyond the prescribed hours of work. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any motor transport worker whose total period of employment including any day spent on leave is less than six days. " Section 26 of the Act contains a provision for payment of extra wages for work done beyond the prescribed hours of work. It is provided therein that where a worker is required to work on a day of rest under sub-section (2) of sec tion 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 a day of rest, as the case may be. According to sub-section (4) of section 26, ordinary rate of wages, in relation to the motor transport workers means his basic wages plus dearness allowance. This provision makes it clear that a transport worker is entitled to wages at twice his ordinary rate of wages if he works on a day of rest. ( 5. ) WAGES are remuneration which are payable to a person in respect of his employment of work done in such employment. The cases where a workman is paid at daily rate present no difficulty. However, when payment is made on monthly scale of pay, the daily rate of wages for a worker can be obtained only by dividing the amount of basic wages and dearness allowance for 30 days by 26. This is done because the workman is entitled to 4 days as weekly rest during which period he does not work. A workman actually gets monthly wages for the work done only for 26 days. Thus for a workman it is the actual receipt for 26 days which is his monthly scale of pay, i. e. , 30 days wages. Therefore a days wages should mean the result obtained by-dividing the monthly basic pay plus dearness allowance divided by actual number of working days, i. e. , 26 days. According to section 19 (2) of the act, it is double this daily wage which a transport worker is entitled to if he works on a day of rest. Therefore a days wages should mean the result obtained by-dividing the monthly basic pay plus dearness allowance divided by actual number of working days, i. e. , 26 days. According to section 19 (2) of the act, it is double this daily wage which a transport worker is entitled to if he works on a day of rest. The view we take finds support from a recent decision of this Court in Manager, Hopes Textiles Mills v. Appellate Authority and another, s2 There the Court was concerned with calculating the amount of gratuity admissible under section 4 (2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, under which amount of gratuity is payable to an employee for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months at the rate of fifteen days wages based on the rat; of wages last drawn by the employee concerned. According to the proviso annexed to section 4 (2) of that Act, daily wages are to be computed on the average of the total wages received by the employee for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment. Construing those provisions, it was held in that case that daily wages has to be computed by dividing the total wages earned by him within a period of three months immediately preceding the termination by number of days on which he actually worked. Consequently, it was held that fifteen days wages would mean 15 times the daily wage and not wages earned during a period of fifteen days. ( 6. ) AS the transport worker gets monthly wages only for the actual number of working days, it is clear that for the weekly day of rest he is not paid any amount. The monthly scale of pay admissible to him is the amount for the work done for 26 days in. the month. He is, therefore, not paid for the day of rest. Necessarily, therefore, when a transport worker works on the day of rest, he is entitled to double the daily rate of wage which is to be calculated in the manner stated above. The State Industrial Court, respondent no. the month. He is, therefore, not paid for the day of rest. Necessarily, therefore, when a transport worker works on the day of rest, he is entitled to double the daily rate of wage which is to be calculated in the manner stated above. The State Industrial Court, respondent no. 3, was not right in saying that the workers were already paid a single days wage for the day of rest and in addition are entitled to only a single days wage if they worked on the day of rest. The Industrial Court is further not right in calculating the daily wage by dividing the monthly scale of pay by 30. 2. M. P. No. 110 of 1975, decided on 20-10-1978 (Indore Bench ). We are, therefore, of opinion that the order passed by the Industrial Court and also the one passed by the respondent No. 2, i. e. , the Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act for Jabalpur area (Annexures- B and C)are not in accordance with law and must be quashed. We hold that the workers represented by the petitioner shall be paid at double the rate of daily wage as indicated by us above for work done on a day of rest. We further direct that the Authority (respondent No. 2) shall now calculate the wages accordingly. ( 7. ) THE petition is allowed. The orders, dated 9-12-1971 and 29-3-1973-(Annexures B and C) are hereby quashed. The case is sent back to the respondent No. 2 for quantifying the amount payable to workers represented by the petitioner in the manner indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs of this petition. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.