JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.

(1) THE question before the central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta bench (the tribunal) was whether the employees (workmen) working in the government Mint, Alipur, Calcutta who were allottees of government accommodation and as such were not being paid house rent allowance were entitled to compute the overtime allowance payable to them after taking into account, notionally, the element of house rent allowance. Following its earlier decision in Nirmal Chandra Bhowmick v. Union of India (decided on 1/9/1989 the tribunal answered the question by the impugned judgment dated 6/9/1990 in the affirmative and decided the same in favour of the employees. This appeal, by the Union of India is against the judgment of the Tribunal.

(2) IT is not necessary for us to go into the chequered history of litigation on the question whether the employees of the government Mint were entitled to the overtime allowance. It is not disputed before us that the employees of the Government Mint who come within the definition of workmen under the Factories Act, 1948 (the Act) are entitled to extra wages for overtime under Section 59 of the Act. It is further not disputed that all those employees who have not been allotted government accommodation and are in receipt of house rent allowance are entitled to compute the overtime allowance by including house rent allowance into the "ordinary rate of wages". The short question before us is whether the employees who are occupying government accommodation and as such are not being paid house rent allowance, are entitled to compute the "ordinary rate of wages" by notionally adding the amount of house rent allowance which they would have got, had they not been allotted the government accommodation.

(3) THE tribunal accepted the contention of the respondents applicants before it that they were entitled to similar relief as was given to the employees of the Government Mint in OA No. 13 of 1987. On the concession of the learned counsel for the Union of India, the tribunal allowed the application by the impugned order in the following terms:

"MR C.R. Beg very fairty concedes that the facts of this case are identical with those in OA No. 13 of 1987 (Nirmal Ch. Bhowmick v. Union of india.

IN that view of the matter, we dispose of this application at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the applicants dated 8/12/1986 (Annexure C) in the light of the aforesaid two judgment and pass an appropriate order g:ving the same benefits within 60 days from today."

(4) WE may, therefore, examine the judgment of the tribunal in Nirmal Chandra Bhowmick v. Union of India. It would be useful to reproduce the operative part of the judgment:

"IT is the grievance of the applicants that although an order has been made on 11/11/1985 directing that overtime should be calculated inclusive of house rent allowance, the respondents are not implementing the same. This application has been taken out for implementation of the order dated 11/11/1985 read with order dated 28/9/1984 and Mint Diary Order No. 130 of 1984 dated 26/10/1984.

Mr Samir Ghosh appearing for the applicants invits my attention to Annexure A at p. 22 of the application which is the letter dated 11-11- 1985. The subject-mailer of this letter is computation of overtime allowance on the basis of enroluments including house rent allowance payment of arrears regardmg This letter is addressed to the General Manager, India Government Mint. Bombay/Hyderabad/Calcutta and is written by the Under secretary to the government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs.

THIS letter reads as follows:

I am directed to convey the approval of the government of India, Ministry of Finance. Department of Economic Affairs, for making payments of arrears of overtime allowance from 1/1/1956 onwards on the basis of emoluments including hou