' These 41 appeals, one in respect of each respondent workman, are directed against the common decision of the learned IIIrd Labour Court, given on 7th September, 1981 on the 41 separate grievance petitions of the respondents, directing that they are entitled to extra pay for overtime in accordance with the provisions of section 47 of the Factories Act, 1934. The dispute between the parties which gave rise to the aforesaid grievance petitions was that whereas according to the practice prevailing in the appellant company, the workers therein were required to work for 27 hours upto 44 1/2 hours weekly, depending upon the category which the worker belonged or the Department in which he was required to work, and for any extra work required to be performed by them, they were paid at double the basic wages plus cost of living allowance, the respondent workmen claimed that they should be paid for all such overtime work at twice the wages as contemplated in section 47 of the Factories Act. They particularly claimed that for computation of pay for over-time, conveyance allowance, house rent allowance, heat allowance, milk allowance, washing allowance, food allowance and production allowance should also be included. The learned Labour Court, on the basis of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Messrs Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. v. Employees' Union (1), has held that the workmen in the appellant factory are entitled to double the wages including the monetary allowance admissible to them, on the extra work performed by them, beyond the statutory limits of 48 hours a week. It may be pointed out that in the reported case, it was held by this Tribunal that overtime wages can be paid at 2 different rates, in that work done beyond 9 hours a day or 48 {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1981 P C 19 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' hours a week is to be paid at double the ordinary rate as provided in section 47 of the Factories Act, while work done not beyond prescribed hours, but beyond the normal working hours of the factory concerned, could be paid according to agreement or under practice on such rates.
2. Notices of these appeals have been issued to the respondents and although they have been served on 2 occasions, they have failed to put in an appearance. Their failure to defend these appeals, according to Mr. S. M. Yaqoob, the learned representative for the appellants, stands from the fact that the prevailing practice as to grant of overtime in the appellant factory is considered more beneficial to the workers that than what has been awarded to them by the learned Labour Court and, therefore, the workers are reluctant to give their benefits under the prevailing practice and the agreement signed with the Collective Bargaining Agent. In support of his contention, Mr. S. M. Yaqoob has filed the affidavit of Amir Azam Khan, the Assistant Manager (P. W.) of the appellants. The affidavit is accompanied by a copy of letter addressed to each of the 41 respondents, intimating that the appellants wanted to implement the decision of the learned Labour Court, although the appellants have preferred appeal against the said decision, but the respondents and other workmen in the appellant establishment have objected to the implementation of the said decision and consequently, it has not been possible for the appellants establishment to implement the same.
3. The absence of the respondents, despite their being served on 2 separate occasions, seems to support the contentions of Mr. S. M. Yaqoob that the respondents do not want the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court to be implemented. No doubt, section 47 of the Factories Act provides that the workmen were required to put in overtime beyond the prescribed period of 48 hours a week or 9 hours a day are entitled to extra wages at the rates prescribed in the said section, but if under a settlement, practice, agreement or award, the workmen receive better terms for working overtime, they cannot be forced or required to give up' such better terms in preference to the terms prescribed in section 47 of the Factories Act. I would accordingly allow the 41 appeals preferred by the appellant company to the extent that the decision of the learned Labour Court, dated 7th September, 1981 is set aside and the prevailing practice is more beneficial to the workmen than what is provided under section 47 of the Factories Act, 1934, may be followed.