MOHAN SHANTHANAGOUDAR, J. ( 1 ) BY the impugned order, the 1st respondent has held that the workmen of the 2nd respondent-Association are entitled to double the wages if they worked on national and festival holidays. ( 2 ) THE records disclose that the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings before the 1st respondent by filing an application under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival holidays) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") claiming double the wages for working on national and festival holidays. In support of their case, the 2nd respondent relied upon Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Act. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 3 of the act is not applicable to the hospitals by virtue of the notification dated 14-8-1963 bearing No. PLM 189 LLE 63. He submits that if it is held that Section 3 is not applicable to the hospitals, Section 5 of the Act also is not applicable to the hospitals. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid notification dated 14-8-1963 reads thus:"in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival holidays) Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act 24 of 1963), the Government of Mysore (now Karnataka) hereby exempts the following classes of establishments from the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act subject to the condition that the employees of such establishment shall be allowed holidays with wages in lieu of the days for which holidays had to be allowed if this exemption had not been granted: 1. Cinemas and others places of public amusement or entertainment; 2. Hotels, restaurants, boarding or eating houses, cafes or other refreshment houses; 3. Chemists and druggists shops, hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries". ( 5 ) THE bare reading of the said notification makes it clear that the then Government of Mysore (now Karnataka) exempts certain classes of establishment from Clause 2 of Section 3 of the Act. By virtue of the said notification, even the hospitals, nursing home and dispensaries are exempted. Therefore, in my considered view, Section 3 and consequently, Section 5 of the Act, are not applicable to the hospitals. ( 6 ) AT this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent brings to my notice the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the minimum Wages Act. Therefore, in my considered view, Section 3 and consequently, Section 5 of the Act, are not applicable to the hospitals. ( 6 ) AT this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent brings to my notice the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the minimum Wages Act. The relevant portion of the said notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act reads thus: ( 7 ) THE aforesaid Clauses 6 and 7 are already considered by the division Bench of this Court in W. A. Nos. 267 to 274 of 1998. In the said writ appeals, the petitioner herein was also an appellant. The Division bench of this Court while disposing of the said writ appeals observed thus:"6. As far as Clauses 6 and 7 are concerned, all that Clause 6 provides is, if employees are asked to work on Holidays, they should be paid double the ordinary rates of wages. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that actual practice has been whenever a workman works on holiday, another substitute holiday would be given and therefore payment of double the wages was not called for. Whether to grant a substitute holiday or not is a matter for the management. But Clause 6 only requires the employer to pay an employee asked to work on a Holiday, double the ordinary rates of wages. Clause 7 only requires payment of double the wages for the period during which the workmen are employed beyond normal working hours, which is a well-known conditions regarding overtime work. We find no ground to entertain these appeals against the order of the learned Single judge". ( 8 ) THE aforesaid observation made by the Division Bench of this court amply makes it clear that Clause 6 requires the employer to pay the workman, who was asked to work on holiday, double the ordinary wages. Even though the argument of the 2nd respondent that the workmen are not entitled to the benefits arising out of Sections 3 and 5 of the Act is acceptable, the entitlement of the benefits by the workmen arising out of the Clause 6 of the notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act cannot be ignored. Thus, the workmen are entitled to double the ordinary wages, in case if they work on a holiday, in pursuance to the aforesaid notification. Thus, the workmen are entitled to double the ordinary wages, in case if they work on a holiday, in pursuance to the aforesaid notification. The 1st respondent has arrived at the same conclusion, though the reasons assigned may not be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .