Municipal Council, Udaipur v. Sup Lal — 1983 DIGILAW 24 (RAJ)

S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This is a bunch of twenty four writ petitions before me. As they involve common questions, they were heard together. It will be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. 2. It will suffice to notice facts in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 927 of 1980 (Petitioner: Municipal Council, Udaipur Versus Rup Lal). 3. Non-petitioner No. 1 Ruplal is a Fire Brigade Driver. Non-petitioner No.2 is the Authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act (No.XI of 1948) (which will for the sake of brevity hereinafter be referred to as the Act). The Municipal Council, Udaipur is petitioner and employer of non-petitioner No. 1. The petitioner filed the writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order Annexure-4 dated Aug. 21, 1981 passed by the Authority and for dismissing the claim of non-petitioner No. 1 which was filed under section 20(2) of the Act. Non-petitioner No. 1 has stated that he had worked as Fire-Brigade Driver in the Fire-Brigade Department of the Municipal Council, Udaipur from November 22, 1977 to March 31, 1980: that during this period, he had worked four hours excess of the number of hours constituting normal working day on each day and, therefore, is entitled to wages for the excess hours at the overtime rate: and that he has not been paid wages for the overtime. The rate at which the wages for overtime were claimed was double the ordinary wages payable on a normal working day Non-petitioner No. 1 calculated the wages due against the petitioner at Rs. 13,426.64P. The claim was filed on May 3, 1980. The claim under s. 20(2) of the Act was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner resisted the claim by filing the reply Annexure-2 dated June 28, 1980. It was submitted by the petitioner that non-petitioner No. 1 was not entitled to get the overtime wages as his employment is essentially intermittent, as though he is required to do work for twelve hours every day still his duty is of such a nature that the daily hours of work include the period of inaction during which non-petitioner No. 1 even on duty is not called upon to display either physical activity or sustained attention. It was also averred that the duty was of such a nature that non-petitioner No. 1 was engaged in a work which could not be carried on except at times on the irregular action of natural forces. In other words, it was contended that non-petitioner No. 1 is covered by the class of employees falling under s. 13(2) of the Act. On the basis of Notification Annexure-3 dated December 2, 1972 issued by the State Government, it was submitted that the State Government has declared that the Fire-Brigade Employees are such whose employment is essentially intermittent as referred to in s. 13 (2) of the Act and has prescribed the rates of hard duty allowance for overtime rates envisaged in r. 24-A of the Rajasthan Minimum Wages Rules, 1959 (for short the Rules hereinafter). The rates have been made applicable to such Fire-Brigade Employees, whose daily hours of duty are fixed by any Municipal Council/ Board as twelve hours instead of normal working of eight hours. A plea that the claim has been presented after six months was also raised. The application for condonation of delay was also opposed by the petitioner. 4. The Authority framed three issues inclusive of the relief. Non-petitioner No. 1 filed his affidavit in support of the claim. Issue No. 1 when translated into English reads as under : "1. Whether the petitioner (Employee) is not entitled to get overtime wages for four hours per day from the non-petitioner (employer) ?" On May 19, 1981, the authority passed the order that it is not necessary to record evidence of the parties an according to it, the question involved was legal one which could be decided after hearing arguments. Thereafter, on behalf of the Municipal Council, Udaipur a request was made that it wants to cross-examine non-petitioner No. 1 and also wants to produce evidence. After hearing the arguments, the prayer made by the Municipal Council was declined on the ground that in the reply the Municipal Council has admitted taking twelve hours duty from non-petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, according to it, the only question that required to be determined was whether non-petitioner No. 1 was entitled to get overtime wages for four hours per day. It was found that the claim of non-petitioner No. 1 can only be allowed which is within six months. It was found that the claim of non-petitioner No. 1 can only be allowed which is within six months. The Authority, by the order Annexure-4 dated August 21, 1981 directed that non-petitioner No, 1 is entitled to the payment of Rs. 2735/-consisting of Rs. 2690/- as overtime wages; Rs. 100/- as compensation; Rs. 25/-as Advocates Fee: and Rs. 10/- on account of other expenses (Court-fee etc.). The Municipal Council, Udaipur has filed this writ petition on April 29, 1982 for the aforesaid reliefs as stated above. No reply has been filed on behalf of any of the non-petitioners. 5. All the writ petitions arise out of the orders passed in favour of the Fire Brigade Employees of the Municipal Council, Udaipur. 6. I have heard Mr. N. N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. P. Gupta, learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 1. 7. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order Annexure-4 dated August 21, 1981 of the Authority is wholly without jurisdiction as the Fire Brigade Employees are covered by s. 13(2)(c) of the Act as is clear from the Notification Annexure-3 dated December 2, 1972 which was issued by the Appropriate Government viz., State Government and that the reference made to s, 297 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act (No. XXXVIII of 1959) in the Notification Annexure-3 dated December 2, 1972 is only in addition to the powers of the State Government conferred by s. 13(3) of the Act. Mr. N. P. Gupta, learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 supported the order of the Authority as it has held that the hard duty allowance paid to the Fire Brigade Employees cannot be said to be over-time wages under the Act. In these circumstances, the first question that crops up for consideration is whether the order Annexure-4 dated August 21, 1981 of the Authority for the payment of amount is without jurisdiction? 8. It will be relevant here to reproduce the Notification Annexure-3 dated December 2, 1972 in extenso—, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT No. Estt. (S) F. 18(5) DLD/69/50460-50658 Dated 2-12-72. 8. It will be relevant here to reproduce the Notification Annexure-3 dated December 2, 1972 in extenso—, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT No. Estt. (S) F. 18(5) DLD/69/50460-50658 Dated 2-12-72. NOTIFICATION Whereas the Fire Brigade Employees are such whose employment is essentially intermittent because their daily hours of duty include periods of inaction during which they may be on duby but are not called upon to display either physical activity or sustained attention and that they are also engaged in a work which could not be carried on except at times dependent on the irregular action of natural forces and hence fall under the class of employees referred to in section 13(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (h) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 297 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (Act No. 38 of 1959) and by other rules enabling in this behalf and in partial modification to this Departments Notification No. Estt. (S) F. 18 (c) 59) /DLD/68/305888-949 dated October 3, 1970 are pleased to prescribe the following rates of hard duty allowance as overtime rates envisaged in rule 24-A of the Rajasthan Minimum Wages Rules, 1959 for such Fire Brigade Employees whose daily hours of duty are fixed by any Municipal Council/Board as 12 hours instead of the normal working 8 hours:- 1. Fire Officer Rs. 45/- per month. 2. Sub-Fire Officer Rs. 25/- per month. 3. Tindol/Leading Fireman Rs. 15/- per month. 4. Driver Rs 15/- per month. 5. Fireman Rs. 10/- per month. This order shall come into force with immediate effect except in case of Municipal Council, Ajmer where it shall operate retrospectively with effect from 1-12-1968. By Order Sd/- Dy. Secretary to the Government. No. Estt. (S) F. 18 (e)(5) DLD/59/50460-50658 dt. 2.12.72. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be proper to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules-5. 2(b) of the Act defines appropriate Government. It runs as under: "2 (b). Secretary to the Government. No. Estt. (S) F. 18 (e)(5) DLD/59/50460-50658 dt. 2.12.72. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be proper to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules-5. 2(b) of the Act defines appropriate Government. It runs as under: "2 (b). "appropriate Government" means— (i) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or a Railway Administration or in relation to a mine, oilfield or major port, or any Corporation established by a Central Act, the Central Government; and (ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the State Government." S. 2(f) lays down that prescribed means prescribed by the Rules made under the Act. Wages have been defined in S. 2(h) of the Act. S. 3 of the Act provides for fixing of minimum rates of wages and s. 4 of the Act deals with minimum rate of wages. The most important section is s. 13 of the Act. It runs as under: "S. 13. Fixing hours for normal working day, etc- (1) In regard to any scheduled employment the minimum rates of wages in respect of which have been fixed under this Act, the appropriate Government may- (a) fix the number of hours of work which shall constitute a normal working day, inclusive of one or more specified intervals: (b) provide for a day of rest in every period of seven days which shall be allowed to all employees or to any specified class of employees and for payment of remuneration in respect of such days rest : (c) provide for payment for work on a day of rest at a rate not less than the overtime rate. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, in relation to the following classes of employees, apply only to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:- (a) employees engaged on urgent work, or in any emergency which could not have been foreseen or prevented; (b) employees engaged in work in the nature of preparatory or complimentary work which must necessarily be carried on outside the limits laid down for the general working in the employment concerned; (c) employees whose employment is essentially intermittent; (d) employees engaged in any work for technical reasons has to be completed before the duty is over; (e) employees engaged in a work which could not be carried on except at times dependent on the irregular action of natural forces. (3) For the purposes of clause (c) of sub-section (2), employment of an employee is essentially intermittent when it is declared to be so by the appropriate Government or by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Commissioner of Labour especially authorised by the State Government in this behalf on the ground that the daily hours of the duty of the employee or if there be no daily hours of duty as such for the employee: the hours of duty, normally include period of inaction during which the employee may be on duty but is not called upon to display either physical activity or sustained attention." S. 14 of the Act deals with overtime. It reads as follows: "14 Overtime.—(l)Where an employee, whose minimum rates of wages is fixed under this Act by the hour, by the day or by such a longer wage period, as may be prescribed, 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 the time being in force, whichever is higher. (2) Nothing in this Act, shall prejudice the operation of section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, in any case where those provisions are applicable." It has not been disputed by the petitioner that the work of the Fire-Brigade Employees forms the Scheduled Employment as envisaged by s. 2(g) of the Act. (2) Nothing in this Act, shall prejudice the operation of section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, in any case where those provisions are applicable." It has not been disputed by the petitioner that the work of the Fire-Brigade Employees forms the Scheduled Employment as envisaged by s. 2(g) of the Act. Rule 24 of the Rules relates to the number of hours of work that shall constitute a normal working day and it provides that no adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a Scheduled Employment for more than nine hours in a day and forty eight hours in any week. Rule 24-A of the Rules is as under: "24-A.—The provisions of section 13(1) and rules 23 and 24 shall apply to the classes of employees specified in section 13(2) only to the extent and subject to the conditions specified below :- (1) No worker shall be allowed or required to work continuously for a period of more than fourteen days without a rest day of 24 consecutive hours. (2) Every worker shall be allowed a substituted rest day within a fortnight of the rest day on which he is allowed or required to work and an intimation thereof shall be sent to the Inspector so as to reach him at least 24 hours before the substituted rest day is allowed. (3) No worker in any establishment shall be required or allowed to work for more than 9 hours a day and 48 hours in any week: Provided that the total number of hours of work including overtime shall not exceed ten hours on any working day: Provided further that the total number of over-time hours worked by any worker shall not exceed 50 hours in a quarter. (4) The payment for the work done in excess of the normal working hours fixed in rule 24 shall be made at the overtime rate fixed by the State Government. (5) A notice of overtime work to be taken from the workers shall be affixed in the premises of the employment before the commencement of the work mentioning the names of the persons put on overtime work and the purpose and duration of such employment. (5) A notice of overtime work to be taken from the workers shall be affixed in the premises of the employment before the commencement of the work mentioning the names of the persons put on overtime work and the purpose and duration of such employment. A copy of such notice shall also be sent to the inspector concerned within 24 hours of the start of the work." (Note: Rule 24-A added vide amended Notification No. F.l(7) (9)L&H/ 66, dated 14th August, 1967)." S. 297 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, (No. XXXVIII of 1959) deals with power of Government to make rules and orders. The material portion of s. 297 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 runs as follows: "297. Power of Government to make rules and orders.- (1) The State Government may make rules or orders generally for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act and prescribe forms for any proceeding for which it considers that a form should be provided. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the State Government may make rules or orders— (a) with reference to all matters expressly required or allowed by this Act to be prescribed: (b) as to the contributions to be made by the board to the pension and leave allowances of an officer who is serving or who having served under a board has been or is transferred from or to the service of the State Government or is partly employed by the State Government and partly by a board." The Authority, as stated above, has found that the hard duty allowance which was paid to the Fire Brigade Employees in pursuance of the Notification Annexure-3 dated December 2, 1972 cannot be said to be payment of the overtime wages. Under s. 13(1) of the Act, the appropriate Government has been empowered to fix the number of hours of work which constitute a normal working day, inclusive of one or more specified intervals and also to provide for a day of rest in every period of seven days which shall be allowed to all employees or to any specified class of employees and for payment of remuneration in respect of such days of rest and to provide for payment for work on a day of rest at a rate not less than the overtime rate. S. 13(2) of the Act provides for an exception to the general rule contained in s. 13(1) regarding fixation of hours of work, interval of rest etc. Clauses(a) to (e) of S. 13(2) of the Act make mention that on account of peculiar nature, it is not advisable to fix the strict hours of work. One of the five employments enumerated in s. 13 (2) of the Act is the employment of the employees which is essentially intermittent. S.13(3) of the Act defines the nature of an intermittent employment and the appropriate Government to declare it accordingly. According to sub s.(3) of s.13 of the Act, the appropriate Government has been empowered to declare the employment of an employee as essentially intermittent on the ground that the daily hours of duty of the employee or there be no daily hours of duty as such for the employee, the hours of duty normally include period of inaction during which the employee may be on duty but is not called upon to display either physical activity or sustained attention. The contention of Mr. N.N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the hours of duty of the Fire Brigade Employees is 12 hours still for all this time, they are not expected to work and that despite the fact that they are on duty, work is not expected to be taken for all the 12 hours and they are not called upon to display either physical activity or sustained attention. According to the learned counsel, the appropriate Government has prescribed by means of the Notification Annexure-3 the extent and subject to conditions on which the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 13 shall apply, for, the words used in the Notification Annexure-3 are whereas the Fire Brigade Employees are such whose employment is essentially intermittent because their daily hours of duty include periods of inaction during which they may be on duty but are not called upon to display either physical activity or sustained attention and that they are also engaged in a work which could not be carried on except at times dependent on the irregular action of natural forces and hence fall under the class of employees referred to in s. 13(2) of the Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that the State Government has made the declaration under s. 13(3) of the Act and, therefore, it has prescribed the rates of hard duty allowance as overtime rates envisaged in rule 24-A of the Rules for the Fire Brigade Employees whose daily hours of duty are fixed by any Municipal Council/Board as 12 hours instead of the normal working 8 hours. The Notification Annexure-3 dated December 2, 1972 cannot be said to lay down the extent and subject to conditions which have been prescribed by the Rules. Sub-r.(4) of r.24-A lays down that the payment for the work done in excess of the normal working hours fixed in r. 24 shall be made at the overtime rates fixed by the State Government. Therefore, if a Fire Brigade Employee is required to work for 12 hours a day, instead of 48 hours in a week, he does work for 24 hours in excess of the normal working hours in a week. This means that within 7 days in a week, after giving one days rest, he will work for 24 hours more i.e. 4 hours a day. There is no hard duty allowance payable to an employee under the Act. s. 13 of the Act deals with fixing hours for a normal working day. The appropriate Government in regard to a Scheduled Employment in which minimum wages have been prescribed has been empowered to fix hours for a normal working day. Sub-s. (2) of s. 13 of the Act specifies the exception to s. 13(1) and mentions five types of employment regarding which appropriate Government may fix the hours of normal working days. Where minimum rates of wages are fixed by the day or by the month, the manner of calculating wages for a month or for a day as the case may be, is also required to be indicated. Where minimum rates of wages are fixed by the day or by the month, the manner of calculating wages for a month or for a day as the case may be, is also required to be indicated. S. 14 of the Act provides that where minimum rates of wages have been fixed by the hour or by the day or by such longer wage period as may be prescribed and an employee works on any day in excess of the number of hours constituting a normal working day then the employer shall pay him for every hour or part of the hour so worked in excess at the overtime rate so fixed under the Act or under any law of the appropriate Government whichever is higher. Clause(d) of sub-s. (2) of s. 3 provides that the appropriate Government may fix a minimum rate (whether a time-rate, or a piece rate) to apply in substitution for the minimum rate which wound otherwise be applicable in respect of overtime work done by employees and which is referred to as overtime rate. 10. Secs. 13 and 14 of the Act and Rr. 24 and 25 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules, 1950 were considered in Workman. Bombay Port Trust v. Trustees of Bombay Port (1). In regard to s. 13 of the Act, it was held that s. 13 of the Act does not itself fix the hours of work or rest or overtime. That is done by the Rules and it only authorises Government to fix the number of hours which shall constitute a normal working day, inclusive of one or more specified intervals. The normal working day thus includes (a) hours of actual duty, and (b) one or more specified intervals. There may be one interval of rest or there may be more intervals but whatever their number, they must be specified. By interval under s. 13 is obviously meant interval of rest and this is clear from s. 24(2). There is no definition of interval either in the Act or the Rules but the provisions of s. 13 (2)(c) read with s. 13 (3) give an indication of what is meant by an interval of rest. Their Lordships observed as under ; "It means a break in the work during which a workman, though present on duty, is not called upon to display either physical activity or sustained attention. Their Lordships observed as under ; "It means a break in the work during which a workman, though present on duty, is not called upon to display either physical activity or sustained attention. But it is not a period of mere inaction because there is no work for him. If it is the latter, it is counted as actual work period: if the former, it is counted as a period of rest, provided the period is specified before hand, and the workman is neither called upon to work nor expected to work." Thus, it is clear that the Notification (Annexure-3) dated Dec. 2, 1972 cannot be said to be a declaration under s. 13 (3) of the Act by the State Government under the Rules. Having regard to s. 13 (2) and (3) of the Act, I am of opinion that the Fire Brigade Employees if they work in excess of the normal working hours, are entitled to overtime wages at the overtime rates as fixed under s. 3 (2) (d) of the Act. Rule 24-A of the Rules clearly lays down that the payment for the work done in excess of the normal working hours fixed under r. 24 shall be the rate of the overtime fixed by the State Government. In these circumstances, the order (Annexure-4) dated August 21, 1981 holding that the hard duty allowance which was paid to the Fire Brigade Employees cannot be considered as overtime, wages at the overtime rates is not without jurisdiction and the Notification Annexure 3 dated December 2, 1972 cannot be said to be a declaration issued by the appropriate Government under s. 13 (3) of the Act. The contention of Mr. N.N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order Annexure-4 dated August 21, 1981 of the authority is without jurisdiction is, therefore, overruled. 11. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an apparent error on the face of the record of the order Annexure-4 dated August 21,1981 inasmuch as the Authority has not considered that non-petitioner No. 1 has taken the benefit of the Notification Annexure-3 dated December 2, 1972 by receiving hard duty allowance and as such, after such a long time, having taken the benefit under the Notification Annexure-3, the order for payment of overtime wages is wrong. I have already held that the Notification Annexure-3 dated December 2, 1972 cannot be said to be a declaration by the State Government under s. 13 (3) of the Act and because of the provisions contained in s. 13 (2) of the Act and r. 24-A of the Rules, non-petitioner No. 1 is entitled to get the overtime wages at the overtime rates. The question of estoppel in the facts and circumstances of this case will not arise for the reason that non-petitioner No. 1 is only entitled to 6 months overtime wages preceding the date of the filing of the claim. Non-petitioner No. 1 has not taken any advantage under the Act in regard to overtime wages and, therefore, the question of double benefit does not arise. There is no force in this contention. 12. The third and last contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before making direction for the payment of the amount mentioned in the order Annexure 4 of the Authority, no enquiry whatsoever was held by it. Attention was invited to the Chart which has been submitted by the petitioner, to show that non-petitioner No. 1 is only entitled to overtime wages for the days for which he actually worked and as he has not worked for overtime for all the days, he was not entitled to the sum awarded by the Authority in this regard, it was urged that before making direction for the payment of the quantified amount, the Authority should have held an enquiry. The claim was submitted under s. 20 (2) of the Act. Sub-s. (3) of S.20 of the Act amongst others lays down that the Authority shall hear the applicant and the employer give them an opportunity of being heard and after such further inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, may without prejudice to any other penalty to which the employer may be liable under the Act shall direct the payment of the amount due to the employee together with the payment of such compensation as specified therein. Para 1 of the Application Annexure-1 is as follows : ¼1½ izkFkhZ Qk;j fczxsM MªkbZoj ¼dk;Z dh fdLe½ eSa fu;qDr Jh@eSllZ fkM;qy bEiyh;esUV& ds ¼deZpkjh oxZ½ esa 2nd xzsM ¼Js.kh½ ds :i esa fnukad 22-11-77 ls 31-3-80 rd fu;kstu esa FkkA fu;ksftr jg pqdk gS] tks fd U;wure etnwjh ¼feu feuhee ostst½ fu;kstu esa FkkA fu;kstu jg pqdk gS] tks fd U;wure etnwjh ¼feu feuhee ostst½ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk ¼2½ ¼N½ ds v/kkuqlkj ,d fu/kkZfjr fu;kstu [Local Authority] esa gSA This para has been admitted by the petitioner in its reply Annexure-2 dated June 28, 1980. Para 3(G) of the application Annexure-1 is as follows : ¼3½ ¼x½ izkFkhZ dks fnukad 22-11-77 ls 31-3-80 rd 4 ?kaVk izfrfnu vf/kle; dk;Z dh nj ds fglkc ls etnwjh dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ izR;sd ys[kksa ds vUrxZr ekaxus okyh jkfk dk fuEu izdkjs.k vuqeku yxk;k gS%& ¼d½ 4 ?kaVk izfrekg vks-Vks- M~;wVh dh jsV ls 15-83 :i;s izfr fnu ds 475@& :i;s izfr ekg ds fglkc ls ,d o"kZ dk 5700@& :i;sA ¼[k½ ikap gtkj lkr lkS :i;k gksrk gSA ¼x½ 2 o"kZ 4 ekg 8 fnu rsjg gtkj pkj lkSa NCchl :i;k pkSlB u;s iSlsA dqy :i;k 13426-64- In reply to para 3 (G) of the application Annexure-1, the petitioner has stated amongst others that the averments made in para 3(rr) and 4 are not true and, therefore, not admitted- The material portion of para 2 of the reply Annexure-2 is as under : ¼2½ izkFkZuk i= dh dfUMdk 3 ¼x½ o 4 esa of.kZr rF; feF;k gksus ls vLohdkj gSA izkFkhZ }kjk fnukad 22-11-77 ls fnukad 31-3-80 rd pkj ?kaVs izfr fnu ds fglkc ls vf/kd le; dk;Z djus ,oa bl vof/k ds fy, osru izkIr djus dh ekax vuqfpr o voS/k gksus ls vLohdkj gSA The Authority ordered on May 19,1981 that in view of issue No.l framed by it, it is not necessary to record evidence as it was a legal question which could also be decided after hearing the arguments Subsequently, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it wants to produce evidence. The Authority was of opinion that it has been admitted by the petitioner that 12 hours duty was taken in respect of the period mentioned in para 3 (G) of the application Annexure-1 and, therefore, there is only legal question to be determined whether non-petitioner No.l is entitled or not to the overtime wages. As stated above, in para 2 of the reply Annexure-2 the petitioner has stated that the facts stated in para 3 (G) of the application are not true and not admitted and, therefore, demand of overtime wages for the period mentioned therein is improper and illegal. From the reply, it cannot be said that it was admitted by the petitioner that it had taken 12 hours work from non-petitioner No.l on each of the days in respect of the period mentioned in para 3 (G) of the application Annexure-1. There is thus an apparent error when the Authority held that the petitioner had taken 12 hours work from non-petitioner No.l on each of the days from November 22, 1977 to March 31, 1980. Apart from this, the Authority has categorically found that non-petitioner No.l is only entitled to claim overtime wages in respect of those working days falling within the period of 6 months from the date of the presentation of the claim. Under sub-s. (3) of S.20 of the Act, it was necessary for the Authority after coming to the conclusion that non-petitioner No.l is entitled to overtime wages to have held an enquiry as to the number of actual days of working falling within the relevant period of 6 months from the date of the presentation of the claim on which the non-petitioner No.l had worked overtime. The Authority should have made the order according to the facts and circumstances of the case as determined upon an enquiry to be held by it by recording necessary evidence in support of the contentions which the parties may choose to produce and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected party. 13. The Authority should have made the order according to the facts and circumstances of the case as determined upon an enquiry to be held by it by recording necessary evidence in support of the contentions which the parties may choose to produce and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected party. 13. It is clear from the order Annexure-4 that the procedure laid down in sub-s. (3) of s.20 of the Act prior to the determination of the amount was not followed by holding an enquiry which was necessary in the cases on hand and under the misapprehension that there is admission of the petitioners direction for the payment of amount was made by the Authority. In arriving at the quantified amount regarding overtime wages, a substantial error was committed by the Authority which vitiates its orders Annexure-4. 14. No other point was pressed for my consideration. The upshot of the above discussion made hereinabove is that (1) that the Fire Brigade Employees are entitled to overtime wages and the Authority has jurisdiction to determine the overtime wages at the overtime rates and that the hard duty allowance which is said to have been paid in pursuance of the Notification Annexure-3 dated December 2.1972 cannot be said to be the payment of overtime wages under the Act; (ii) that the determination of the amount relating to the overtime wages, compensation etc. cannot be sustained, for, no enquiry in accordance with s.20 (3) of the Act was hold. The Authority should have determined the amount for the overtime wages in respect of the days on which non-petitioner No.l has worked overtime for four hours falling within the period of 6 months preceding the date of the presentation of the claims. 15. The result is that all the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. The order Annexure-4 dated August 21,1981 of the Authority in regard to the determination of the quantified amount is quashed and set aside. The Authority shall hold enquiry and make a fresh order in regard to the amount payable to non-petitioner No.l on the claim filed under s.20 (2) of the Act in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made hereinabove, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of the writ petitions.