D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

( 1 ) RULE, by consent returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing. I

( 2 ) THE Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed the claim preferred before it by the twenty one respondents for the payment of Overtime Allowance at double the rate whenever duties have been performed in excess of 48 hours per week in accordance with the provisions of section 59 (1) of the Factories Act, 1948. Arrears have been directed to be paid for a period of one year prior to the date of the institution of the application before the Tribunal. The Union of India has petitioned. For the reasons we indicate now, we have concluded that the tribunal has overlooked a crucial change in legislative position. We remand the proceedings for fresh determination. II

( 3 ) THE India Security Press and the Currency Note Press at Nasik Road are under the administrative control of the Government of India in the Department of economic Affairs of the Union Ministry of Finance. The respondents were appointed and posted to work in the Technical Section of the India Security Press and the Currency Note Press as Supervisors. An application was filed by them before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming the benefit of Overtime allowance at twice the rate of their ordinary wages under section 59 of the factories Act, 1948 in respect of the work done beyond a period of nine hours each day or in excess of 48 hours a week. The petitioner filed a Written statement opposing the claim. Initially the Central Administrative Tribunal came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the claim for the payment of Overtime Allowance under the Factories Act, 1948. A petition filed by the respondents before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was allowed by a Division Bench on 29th January 2005. The Division Bench held that the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim and remanded the matter for consideration. On remand, the Tribunal allowed the application by its judgment dated 4th April, 2005 which is impugned in these proceedings. III

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the nature of the controversy a reference to the governing provisions of law would be necessary. Section 2 (k) of the Factories act defines the expression "manufacturing process" while 2 (1) defines the expression "worker". The latter expression is defined to mean a person employed directly or by or through any agency including a contractor, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process or in any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process, or the subject of the manufacturing process. The expression "factory" is defined in section 2 (m ). Section 59 of the Act requires an employer to pay extra wages for overtime work in a factory and the material part of sub-section (1) thereof is as follows :" (1) Where a worker works in a factory for more than nine hours in any day or for more than forty-eight hours in any week, he shall, in respect of overtime work, be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary rate of wages. "section 64 which is a part of Chapter VI, like section 59, confers an enabling power upon the State Government to make rules defining persons holding positions inter alia of supervision or management and to whom therefore, the provisions of the Chapter would not be attracted. Sub-section (1) of section 64, in so far as is material, is as follows :"64. Power to make exempting rules.- (1) The State Government may make rules defining the persons who hold positions of supervision or management or are employed in a confidential position in a factory or empowering the Chief Inspector to declare any person, other than a person defined by such rules, as a person holding position of supervision or management or employed in a confidential pos