P. K. Bahri, J. ( 1 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the provisions of the aforesaid Act were not at all applicable and respondent No. 2 could not invoke the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 for entertaining his claim. It has been argued that petitioner had a project at Iraq which is commercial establishment at Iraq and as respondent No. 2 has rendered services as employee of the said establishment of petitioner at Iraq and thus the said establishment is not covered by the provisions of the Delhi Shops Establishments Act, 1954. The counsel for the petitioner made reference to various provisions of the Act to show that this Act was meant to apply to establishments working in Delhi and could not have any jurisdiction over the establishments which are beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. I will deal with this point first as it goes to the root of the matter. The counsel For respondent on the other band has argued that respondent No. 2 was employed by the petitioner and thus became employee as understood by the definition of employee given in this act and as respondent No. 2 had rendered service in connection with the business of the petitioner, even though in Iraq, still respondent No. 2 is covered by the provisions of the Act. He has argued that the office being run by the petitioner at Iraq could not be termed as an establishment as such office had no independent business of its own. He has argued that the provisions of the Act should be liberally construed so as to render benefits to the mployees. ( 2 ) THE admitted case of the parties is that respondent No. 2 was employed by the petitioner for being posted at petitioner s office in Iraq for the performance of petitioner s business, i. e. , the construction of houses. ( 3 ) THE provisions of the Act leave no room for doubt that they are to apply to the establishments located in Delhi and not to any establishments working outside Delhi. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently argued that in order to term any particular office as an establishment it must be shown that the said office is having its own independent business, I am afraid that no such ingredient is to be established. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently argued that in order to term any particular office as an establishment it must be shown that the said office is having its own independent business, I am afraid that no such ingredient is to be established. Only thing to be seen is whether a particular office is an. establishment or not and in case that particular establishment is not in Delhi the provisions of this Act would not apply. The office which petitioner was having in Iraq by itself can be termed as an establishment. It cannot be held that mere fact that the business of the petitioner is being carried on from that office so the petitioner s office in Delhi could be treated as an establishment and not petitioner s office at Iraq. ( 4 ) THE order of the Competent Authority has to be set aside being without jurisdiction. On the question of limitation also the Authority has exercised its discretion without giving any cogent reasons. Respondent No. 2 had executed a receipt in full and final settlement of his claim in 1983. Even though legally he could not be bound by the contents of the said receipt in view of Section 24 of the Act still he was legacy bound to invoke the jurisdiction of the Authority within one year when his claim arose against the petitioner but he invoked the jurisdiction belatedly in 1985. ( 5 ) IN regard to the grant of over time wages there was only ipsi dixit of respondent No. 2 that he has performed duty for 10 hours daily in Iraq. He never stated that any attendance register was being maintained in Iraq which could show that he had performed over time duties. So there was no question for drawing any adverse inference against the petitioner for non production of any such record, la case respondent No. 2 had rendered any over time work he would have not failed to serve any notice in writing on the petitioner as soon as he returned to India if he was not in a position to pat up his claim while in Iraq. Respondent No. 2 admittedly was head of the Account Department in that office of the petitioner at Iraq. So it is not understood why he should have put in extra hours of work. Respondent No. 2 admittedly was head of the Account Department in that office of the petitioner at Iraq. So it is not understood why he should have put in extra hours of work. If he had done so voluntarily, then he was not entitled to any overtime wages. There is no evidence that he had been directed by anyone to work over time. So examining from any angle I find that the impugned order cannot be supported in law. I allow the writ petition. I make the rule absolute and quash the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1. inview of the legal questions involved I leave the parties to bear their own costs.