JUDGMENT

Anu Sivaraman, J.

The employer company, who was the petitioner in the writ petition, is in appeal against the judgment which upholds the award of the Labour Court. The 1st respondent herein is a Union which was a party to Ext.P1 settlement dated 9.4.2008. It was contended by the Union that Clause 37 of the settlement provided that arrears of payments admissible under the Memorandum of Settlement from 1.1.2006 shall be paid to the eligible workmen within one month from the date of fixation of their pay in the revised scales of pay. It is stated that all arrears of salary were paid to the workmen on the basis of the settlement and was duly accepted by the workers. Thereafter, one of the Unions, that is, the 1st respondent herein raised a demand for arrears of overtime wages as well.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no provision in Ext.P1 with regard to arrears of overtime wages and that the arrears of overtime wages were not specifically agreed to be paid to the workmen. It is stated that the workmen could have demanded no further increase in wages for the period in question, except what is specifically covered by Ext.P1. The conciliation having failed, the question whether denial of overtime arrears consequent to Ext.P1 is justifiable or not was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. It is contended that the employer had produced letters from three other public sector undertakings stating that none of the companies pay arrears of overtime wages. However, Ext.P5 award was passed holding that since there is no provision in the settlement relinquishing the claim for arrears of overtime wages, the said arrears are payable. The said award was under challenge before the learned Single Judge.

3. It was specifically contended that there was no terms in the settlement for payment of arrears of overtime wages and that the payment of arrears of overtime wages is not a practice in the industry. However, without properly considering the contentions of the appellant, the writ petition was dismissed, it is contended. It is further contended that three unions were signatories of Ext.P1 settlement and only one of such unions has raised a dispute and that therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would, on the other hand, contend that overtime wages are a part of wages by the definition of wages under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. Referring to Sections 2(vi) and 2(vi)(b) of the Payment of Wages Act, it is contended that overtime wages specifically form part of wages. Thereafter, with reference to Section 59 of the Factories Act, it is contended that overtime wages form part of the statutory entitlement of the workers. In view of the fact that arrears of wages have been agreed between the parties to be paid from 1.1.2006 such arrears would include the arrears of overtime wages as well. It is contended that since the 1st respondent Union was a signatory to the settlement, the mere fact that the other unions did not raise a demand cannot make any difference since the workers would be entitled to the arrears of wages as provided in Ext.P1 settlement including the arrears of overtime wages.

5. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that overtime wages are also specifically included in the definition of wages under the Payment of Wages Act. There is admittedly no clause in Ext.P1 settlement which excludes the payment of arrears of overtime wages. There is a specific provision, that is, Clause 37 which provides for payment of arrears of wages. Since wages include overtime wages as well and since there is no exclusion of arrears of overtime wages specifically provided in Ext.P1 settlement, we are unable to accept the contention that such arrears of overtime wages are not payable since it is not generally paid as a practice in the industry.

Having considered the contentions advanced, we do not find any illegality in the