JUDGMENT S.B. Shukre, J. (Oral) - Heard Shri R.V. Moharir, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.S. Ghate, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Shamsi Haider, learned Asstt. Government Pleader for the respondent No.3. Nobody appears for respondent No.2. 2. The question involved in this petition is as to whether or not the respondent No.1 could have been held to be entitled to over time allowance in the absence of fixed duty hours. 3. Shri R.E. Moharir, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in order to decide the question of entitlement to receive the over time allowance, it is necessary that starting point of the work is proved. He submits that the prayer of the complaint itself show that there is an admission given by the respondent No.1 that there was no starting point fixed in the matter as by a specific prayer made under clause (2), a direction of the Industrial Court has been sought for fixation of the working hours of the respondent No.1. He further submits that the respondent No.1 falls in the category of Khansama and admittedly no working hours have been fixed for such category of employees and it is also not possible to do so, given the nature of the job performed by them. He submits that Khansamas remain attached to the guesthouses and are required to render their services as and when required by the guests occupying the guest houses. He submits that there is no award or agreement or settlement which entitles Khansama to receive the over time and the category of Khansama itself is a special category, not comparable with the other category of workers and, therefore, there is no question of breach of items 9 and 5 in Schedule 4 to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971(in short, "MRTU & PULP Act"). 4. Shri S.S. Ghate, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 disagrees. He supports the order of the Industrial Court. 4. Shri S.S. Ghate, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 disagrees. He supports the order of the Industrial Court. He invites my attention to the findings rendered by the Industrial Court in paragraphs 16,24 and 25 which, according to him, would make it clear as to how the respondent No.1''s case squarely falls within the scope of section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948 and also Regulation 2(A) of the MSEB Employees Service Regulation (in short, "Regulation") so as to make him eligible for receiving the over time allowance as well as fixation of his working hours. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.3 submits that an appropriate order may be passed in the matter. 6. On going through the impugned judgment and order and also the evidence available on record, I find that there is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners and great merit in the argument canvassed on behalf of respondent No.1. 7. The Industrial Court has recorded a clear finding to the effect that the guesthouse of petitioner of which respondent No.1 is the Khansama, is a factory within the meaning of Factories Act. This finding has been rendered on the basis of pleading of the parties and their admissions which have come on record during the course of evidence and as such, there is no reason for me to interfere with the same. Once it is found that the guesthouse is a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948, there would be no escape from the rigor of section 59(1) of the Factories Act. This provision of law lays down that where a worker works in a factory for more than 9 hours on any day or for more than 48 hours in any week, he shall be entitled to receive the wages for the over time work at the rate specified in it. So, the argument that there is no award or agreement or settlement to take resort to for considering the breach or otherwise of Item 9 in Schedule 4 is not available to the petitioner. 8. The conclusion so drawn by me gets further support from the Regulation 2(A) of the Regulation, which covers the case of group four employees. So, the argument that there is no award or agreement or settlement to take resort to for considering the breach or otherwise of Item 9 in Schedule 4 is not available to the petitioner. 8. The conclusion so drawn by me gets further support from the Regulation 2(A) of the Regulation, which covers the case of group four employees. This regulation clearly shows that working hours of the employees in Appendix ''A'' to this Regulation shall be of 8 hours per day and this span of 8 hours per day is required to be fixed by the officer incharge of the unit concerned and it would exclude the recess. The category of respondent No.1, being senior Khansama, is covered by this Regulation and there is no dispute about this fact. There is also evidence showing that the respondent No.1 had made from time to time different representations to the petitioners to fix his working hours of 8 hours and also pay him over time wages, however, those representations were not responded to in any manner by the petitioners. This has all been considered by the Industrial Court in an appropriate manner when it recorded a finding that the respondent No.1 is entitled to have his working time of 8 hours fixed in the matter and also entitled to receive the over time wages. Since this finding is based upon the evidence established on record and also aforestated provisions of the Factories Act and Regulation 2(A) of the Regulation of the petitioner, I do not see any illegality, much less patent illegality in the same. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has also brought to my notice the pleadings of the petitioners as well as the admissions given by the petitioners. They all show that in case of some other Khansamas, over time allowance or wages have been paid to them. If this is the evidence established on record, I see no reason to permit any discriminatory treatment being given to the respondent No.1 or otherwise it would amount to breach of Item No.5 in Schedule 4. This has also been considered appropriately by the Industrial Court warranting no interference with the findings recorded in this behalf by it. 10. In the result, I see no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 11. Writ Petition stands dismissed. 12. This has also been considered appropriately by the Industrial Court warranting no interference with the findings recorded in this behalf by it. 10. In the result, I see no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. 11. Writ Petition stands dismissed. 12. It is directed that the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court giving specific directions to the petitioners including the direction of payment of over time wages shall be complied with by the petitioners within two months from the date of order. 13. Rule is discharged. No costs.