Judgment

KHALID, J. :- What is the rate of overtime allowance admissible to the employees of the two appellants working in their establishments situated in the State of Tamil Nadu is the only question raised in these appeals by special leave?

2. M/s. Philips India Ltd. the appellant in the first batch of appeals - a company incorporated under the Companies Act has an establishment in the State of Tamil Nadu. This establishment is governed by The Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (Act for short). According to the practice followed by the company, the employees of the establishment had to render service for 39 hours a week, made up of 7 hours per day from Monday to Friday and 4 hours on Saturday. Effective from March 29, 1985, when the company switched over to five days week, it still retained the total number of working hours per week as 39 by extending the working hours from Monday to Thursday at 7-3/4 hours and 8 hours on Friday. Thus the total working hours per week remained constant at 39. The company also introduced the rate, of overtime payment at 11/2 times the ordinary wages for work done over and above the maximum number of working hours per week as well as for working on holidays. This rate was admissible for overtime work done beyond 39 hours per week but this was subject to an important condition that whenever the total working hours exceed either 8 hours per day or 48 hours per week, the employees were entitled to overtime at twice the ordinary wages as mandated by S. 31 of the Act.

3. State Bank of India (Bank for short), the appellant in the second batch of appeals, paid overtime allowance at the rate as awarded by the National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) popularly known as Desai Award. The Tribunal fixed the working hours not exceeding 6 1/2 hours a day from Monday to Friday and not exceeding 4 hours a day on Saturday. After thus fixing working hours at 36 1/2 per week, the Tribunal proceeded to give direction about rate of overtime allowance admissible to the employees governed by award. Modifying the rates as awarded by the Shastri Award, the Tribunal directed that the rate of overtime allowance would be 1 1/2 times the wages as explained in the relevant portion of the award for every quarter of an hour of overtime work done for which payment has to be made. (See Para 10.46 of the Desai Award)

4. 11 employees of the company filed Claim Petition No. 329/71 in the Labour Court at Madras under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I. D. Act for short), inviting the Labour Court to compute the monetary benefit in respect of overtime allowance for the work done beyond the prescribed hours of work per week as provided in Section 31 of the Act. In other words, they claimed that in view of the provision contained in Section 31 of the Act, the employees of the company working in the establishment at Madras are entitled to overtime wages at double the rate of ordinary wages for work done in excess of 39 hours per week and not at 1 1/2 times the rate of ordinary wages as is being done by the company.

5. Another Claim Petition No. 306/71 was moved for identical relief by some other employees of the company.

6. Similarly three employees of the State Bank of India filed three separate Claim Petitions Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of 1964 before the Central Government Labour Court, Madras praying for identical relief on almost identical grounds. In other words, they claimed overtime wages at double the rate of ordinary wages as prescribed in S. 31 of the Act.

7. Though the matters were before two separate Labour Courts and were decided at different intervals, both the Labour Courts held that Section 14 of the Act does not prescribe number of working hours per day but it merely specifies maximum number of working hours that can be introduced by an employer in an establishment governed by the Act. But once the employer chooses to prescribe working hours per day or total number of working hours per week less th