S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-The petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order, contained in Memo No. 2673 dated 2nd December, 2004, issued. by the 5th respondent, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone-I, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, claim of the petitioner for payment of dues for performing overtime work has been partly rejected on the ground that there is a limitation to take overtime work for more than 50 hours in a quarter of a particular year or maximum 150 hours in the concerned financial year, as per the Board's circular.

Further prayer has been made by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to prosecute the concerned 2nd to 5th respondents for violating the provisions of Factories Act, 1948, in terms with the provisions of Sections 92 and 105 of the Factories Act, 1948.

2. The petitioner, who was posted as Assistant Controller, Transmission Sub-Division-Jadugora, while performing the duties as such, the State Electricity Board took overtime work on different dates in between January, 1994 and December, 2001 but did not pay him the overtime dues.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner had to move before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 127 of 2002 for a direction on the Electricity Board to pay him the amount for taking overtime work. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 7th January, 2002 remitted the case to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Area Electricity Board, to determine the claim but decision having not been communicated, the petitioner had to prefer a contempt petition. In the contempt case being Contempt Case (C) No. 382 of 2002, the opposite parties brought to the notice of the Court a decision communicated vide impugned Memo No. 2673 dated 2nd December, 2004 and having noticed the same, this Court dropped the proceeding on 3rd December, 2004. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner had to challenge the impugned order no. 2673 dated 2nd December, 2004, whereby, part prayer for payment of overtime dues has been rejected and the respondents have allowed and paid the overtime only to the extent of 50 hours per quarter.

3. The petitioner claim the following hours of overtime work beyond the normal working hours as was taken by the respondents for managing the control room where the petitioner was posted:

Year Month Sanctioned overtime hours

1994 January 160

-do- August 192

-do- October 224

-do- April 48

-do- May 192

-do- June 176

1995 July 48

-do- September 72

-do- October 112

-do- December 112

-do- January 104

-do- February 88

-do- March 72

1996 June 88

-do- July 152

-do- August 152

-do- September 152

-do- October 160

-do- November 96

-do- December 176

-do- January 88

-do- February 112

-do- March 128

-do- April 240

-do- May 248

1997 June 168

-do- July 200

-do- August 200

-do- September 200

-do- October 232

-do- November 216

-do- December 160

-do- January 240

-do- February 232

-do- March 168

-do- April 200

-do- May 200

-do- June 144

1998 July 40

-do- August 200

-do- September 240

-do- October 264

-do- November 248

-do- December 160

1999 January 176

-do- February 176

-do- March 184

-do- April 40

-do- October 40

-do- November 40

-do- December 12

-do- January 40

-do- February 32

-do- March 8

-do- April 24

2000 May 8

-do- July 16

-do- August 16

-do- October 16

-do- November 40

-do- December 40

-do- January 32

-do- February 32

-do- April 248

-do- May 8

-do- June 8

2001 July 32

-do- August 32

-do- September 16

-do- October 48

-do- November 56

4. The respondents have not disputed the aforesaid fact that the overtime work to the extent of 8 to 224 hours in a month was also taken from the petitioner. In fact, the over-time work for different months, as given by the petitioner, has not been disputed and from the impugned order, it appears that the then General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Area Electric Supply, also accepted the same and has ordered to make payment, which is evident from the impugned order no. 2673 dated 2nd December, 2004, as