ORDER The 12 petitioners are sweepers posted in the residential colony for officers and workmen of the Amritsar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Rohana Kalau, Muzaffarnagar, respondent No. 2. They made applications under Section 6-H (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Labour Court, respondent No. 1, claiming that as no weekly holiday as required to be given under Section 9 of the U .P. Duican Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Adhiniyam, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) had been allowed to them during the period 1-12-1963 to 31-8-1970 they were entitled to overtime wages for the work clone on such days. The employer Mills resisted these applications. The Labour Court per its order dated 24-7-1972 held that the applicants were employees within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Adhiniyam as well as workmen within the meaning of Section 6-H (2) of the Act and were, therefore, entitled to apply under Section 6-H (2). It, however, dismissed the applications on the ground that there was no provision under the Adhiniyam for payment of overtime wages on a weekly holiday and, therefore, the applications under Section 6-H (2) were not maintainable. This writ petition is for quashing this order and for a direction to the Labour Court to proceed to dispose of the aforesaid applications under Section 6-H (2) by computing the benefit of the weekly holidays to the petitioners on overtime wage basis. 2. There was an attempt on behalf of the respondents to question the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioners were employees as defined by Section 2 (6) of the Adhiniyam. The Labour Court has discussed; this question elaborately and found that, in view of the directive in Part C of Schedule I to the Adhiniyam that all the provisions of the Adhiniyam shall apply to those employees of the vacuum pan sugar factories in the State to whom the provisions of Factories Act 1948 do not apply, the petitioners were employees. This is a finding of fact not challengeable in a writ petition when no legal infirmity in the finding has been pointed out. Reference may be made to Andhra Scientific Co. This is a finding of fact not challengeable in a writ petition when no legal infirmity in the finding has been pointed out. Reference may be made to Andhra Scientific Co. Ltd. v. A Seshagiri Rao ( AIR 1967 SC 408 ) where the Supreme Court held that where the Labour Court on a consideration of the functions actually performed by the employee held that he comes within the definition of workman under the Act the High Court will not interfere with that finding except in cases where there is a clear error on the face of the record. The principle is applicable to the finding of the Labour Court about the employee and workman character of the petitioners. 3. It was next contended that the applications were not maintainable under Section 6-H (2) because that provision could apply if the right or title to the benefit claimed by the worker was undisputed and the Labour Court was only to determine the amount at which such benefit should be computed. This contention has no force. In Central Bank of India v. P. S. Rajagopalan ( AIR 1961 SC 743 ) the Supreme Court observed as follows (at p. 748): - "Before proceeding to compute the benefit in terms of money the Labour Court inevitably has to deal with the question as to whether the workman has a right to receive that benefit if the said right is disputed the Labour Court must deal with that question and decide whether the workman has the right to receive the benefit as alleged by him and it is only if the Labour Court answers this point in favour of the workman that the next question of making the computation can arise The claim under Section 33-C (2) clearly postulates that the determination of the question about computing the benefit in terms of money may in some cases have to be preceded by an enquiry into the existence of the right and such an enquiry must be held to be incidental to the main determination which has been assigned to the Labour Court." These observations hold good in respect of Section 6-H (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act which is in pari materia to Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is true that claim for wages etc. It is true that claim for wages etc. based on a challenge to an order of dismissal or_.demotion or to a settlement between the parties would not be covered by Section 6-H (2) of the Act and an industrial dispute would have to be raised. In the present case, however, overtime wages are claimed by individual workmen petitioners on the legal basis of the provisions of the Adhiniyam, without challenge to any dismissal or demotion order or settlement or award. Such a claim is entertainable under Section 6-H (2) and the Labour Court should have decided the matter of petitioners right as a necessary incidental question before proceeding to quantify the benefit in terms of money. The Labour Court's observations, however, show that it was of opinion that in the absence of a specific provision for overtime wages for work on weekly holidays Section 6-H (2.) could not apply. These observations show a mixing up of the question of applicability of Section 6-H (2) with the question of existence of the right on merits. The matter of right will be considered presently, but we must observe that the presence or absence of a specific provision can make no difference to the applicability of Section 6-H (2) and a right alleged to be impliedly conferred by the provisions of the Adhiniyam even if disputed stands for the purposes of applicability of Sec. 6-H (2) on the same footing as one expressly conferred. Relief under Section 6-H (2) must, therefore, be held to he available to the petitioners notwithstanding the denial of the right to overtime wages on behalf of the employer respondent. 4. Before considering the right lo overtime wages on weekly holidays, it will be proper to briefly note the object of the Adhiniyam and its Scheme. The statement of objects and reasons of the Adhiniyam mentions that the predecessor Act of 1947 was enacted to provide for holidays and to regulate the hours of employment in shops and commercial establishments and that certain shortcomings and deficiencies had bee n noticed during its 14 years experience and that the new Act had been framed in order to remove the defects and to provide for some additional facilities to the employees of shop and commercial establishments. The basic provisions in the Adhiniyam are restriction of the number of working days by providing holidays and leave. The basic provisions in the Adhiniyam are restriction of the number of working days by providing holidays and leave. Chapter II deals with Tours of business. Section 5 provides for the opening and closing times as prescribed by rules. Section 6, which fixes maximum hours of work, is most important for the purposes of this case. The relevant part of the provision runs as follows : - "6 (1) No employer shall require or allow an employee to work on any day for more than - (a) five hours in the case of a child, (b) six horns in the case of a young person, and (c) eight hours in the case of any other employee; Provided that any employee, not being a young person or a child, may be required or allowed to work longer than the aforesaid hours of Work, so however, that the total number of hours of work including overtime does not exceed ten on any one day except on a day of stock taking or making of accounts. Provided further that the total number of hours of overtime work shall not exceed fifty in any quarter. (2) Airy employee, who has worked in excess of the hours of work fixed under clause (c) of sub-section (1), shall be paid by his employer wages at twice the ordinary rate, for ever) hour of such overtime work. ..............." Section 7 prescribes for recess during working hours. Chapter III deals with holidays and leaves. Section 8 makes it obligatory to the employer to observe public holidays as well as a weekly close day for the shop. Section 9 requires grant to even,; employee (i) every public holiday (this is also a close day under Section 8) and (ii) one day in each week, i. e. a weekly holiday. Section 10 provides for the rights of casual, sickness and earned leave. Section 12 confers the right to normal wages for the holidays and leave periods. Section 11 provides for payment of extra wages for the period of leave refused to any workman having over 45 days leave at his credit. Section 33 occurring in Chapter VI dealing with enforcement and penalties makes contravention of any provision of the Adhiniyam or Rules an offence and Section 35 prescribes punishment for such offences. Section 11 provides for payment of extra wages for the period of leave refused to any workman having over 45 days leave at his credit. Section 33 occurring in Chapter VI dealing with enforcement and penalties makes contravention of any provision of the Adhiniyam or Rules an offence and Section 35 prescribes punishment for such offences. It is important to note that the mandate regarding hours of work in Section 6 as well as regarding close days in Section 8 and holidays in Section 9 is directed against the employer alone. This means that in case of any breach of these provisions the criminal liability is of the employer alone. 5. The contention on behalf of the employer has been and is that Section 6 (2) aforesaid confers the right to overtime wages only for the work done "in excess of the hours of work fixed under Section 6 (I) (c), but Section 6 (1) (c) refers to "work on any day" and does not exclude a holiday. Therefore, Section 6 (2) will not cover ordinary work on holidays. Secondly, that while overtime work on ordinary days as well as holidays would be covered by Section 6 (2) and overtime wages would be payable such wages would be payable only for the overtime permitted by the two provisos to Section 6 (1) namely, that no overtime will be allowed for any day beyond a total of 10 hours work including working hours and beyond a total of 50 hours in a quarter. Reliance has been placed on a single Judge decision of this Court in State of U. P. v B. S. Jain (1960) 1 Lab LJ 50, where the following observations occur: "The closing of shop, however, is imperative. It is also clear that if an employer takes work from an employee on a close day, he is not bound to pay him extra remuneration for overtime, provided again such employee is given a holiday on some other day of the week. The question of payment of extra remuneration for overtime work arises only when a workman is made to work for more than the prescribed 8 hours in a day and this must be kept quite separate from the question of closing the shop or commercial establishment on a close day arid of allowing every employee a holiday on one day in the week". 6. 6. The second contention is easily disposed of. Section 6 (2), only speaks of hours in excess of those fixed under Section 6 (1) (c) and not of in excess of the hours fixed under Section 6 (1) (c). but subject to provisos. Overtime work above the limits prescribed by the two provisos to Section 6 (1) is also work in excess of the hours fixed by clause (c) of Section 6 (1). In the light of the objects of the Adhiniyam it is neither proper nor possible to regard the maximum of overtime work permitted by the provisos as "hours of work fixed in clause (c) of sub-section (1)", which phrase must be limited to the hours in the conditions of service subject to the 8 hours maximum work permitted for employees other than a child or a young person, in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Workmen ( AIR 1969 SC 306 ) the Supreme Court held in a case under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953. that the workmen were entitled to be paid at overtime rate for all work beyond the hours under their conditions of service, even though within maximum permitted hours under the Act. With regard to the limit of overtime hours prescribed by the Act it was observed that the Rule regarding maximum daily hours of work only put a bar on the employer to demand overtime work from the employee beyond the prescribed extent. "But in violation of the provision if the employee is compelled by the employer to work overtime more than 120 hours a year, that shall not disentitle the employee to recover overtime wages for the period exceeding 120 hours at the statutory rate." These observations hold good with regard to the parallel provisions of Sec. 6 of the Adhiniyam. 7. Coming to the main question of work on weekly holidays the question again is whether the work done on weekly holidays is work in excess of the hours fixed under Sec. 6 (1) (c). The language of Sec. 6 (I) that no employer shall require or allow an employee to work on any day for more than the hours prescribed in clauses (a) to (o) by itself would ordinarily mean that the hours therein are fixed for all days inclusive of holidays. This is because the words "any day" are all inclusive. The language of Sec. 6 (I) that no employer shall require or allow an employee to work on any day for more than the hours prescribed in clauses (a) to (o) by itself would ordinarily mean that the hours therein are fixed for all days inclusive of holidays. This is because the words "any day" are all inclusive. However, as already noted the provisions of Chap. Ill grant holidays and leave tie (lie employees and ensure them wages for holidays without any work. Therefore, if the words "in any day" in Sec. 6 (1) are interpreted in their ordinary sense without any regard to the provisions of Chap. III - it would defeat the provisions of Chap. III regarding holidays and guarantee of wage's without any work on holidays. This must be avoided especially when the object of the statute is amelioration of the working conditions of shop employees. A harmonious interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 6 (J) and Chap. Ill which also advances the object of the Act is, therefore, dictated. Lord Denning has in (1949) 2 All ER 155, Seaford Court Estate v. Asher, referred to the principle of interpretation of provisions of statutes by supplementing the written word so as to give force and fire to the intention of legislature in his inimitable manner in these words : - " .......... Put into homely metaphor it is this : - A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out ? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but be can and should iron out the creases." We are of opinion that the provisions of the Act lead as a whole require that the phrase "on any day" occurring in Sec. 6 (1) should be interpreted as "on any day other than a holiday for the employees under the provisions of the statute" or "on any working day for the employee". On this interpretation the work done by an employee on holidays shall he work in excess of the hours fixed under Sec. 6 (I) and payable at overtime rates under Sec. 6 (2). 8. On this interpretation the work done by an employee on holidays shall he work in excess of the hours fixed under Sec. 6 (I) and payable at overtime rates under Sec. 6 (2). 8. The observations in B. S. Jains case (1960-1 Lab LJ 50) (All) were made in the context of the question for decision in that case, viz., whether the employer could be convicted for work taken on the weekly closing day of (lie shop. The observations did not pertain to the liability for overtime wages for work taken on holidays or what is the same thing where work is taken denying the weekly holiday altogether. Therefore these observations are not helpful on the point of liability for overtime wages regarding work on a holiday. It is clear from the Supreme Court decision cited above that while an employer may he liable in the penal way for work taken in excess of the limits prescribed by the statute he is also liable to pay overtime wages for such work. 9. We are of opinion that the employers contention accepted by the Labour Court regarding interpretation of Sec. 6 is untenable and the employees are entitled to be paid Overtime wages for all the work done on any holiday including the weekly holiday allowed under Sec. 9 as well as any overtime work-done on a working,day, even if it be beyond the limits prescribed by tin- provisos to Sec. 6 (1). 10. In this view of the matter the order of the Labour Court suffers from a manifest error of law and cannot be sustained. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs, the order of the Labour Court dated 24-7-1972 is quashed and the Labour Court is directed to proceed to dispose of the applications under Sec. 6-H (2) in the light of the observations made above.