JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J. :---This writ petition illustrates how a simple case can be confused and chaos generated by vague pleadings on both sides. 2. The petitioners are workmen employed in the India Government Mint at Bombay. The first respondent is the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court No. 2, constituted under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the second respondent is the General Manager of the India Government Mint at Bombay. 3. It is not in dispute that the mint, in which the petitioners are working, is a factory within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. As a result of the recommendations made by the Third and Fourth Pay Commissions, which were accepted and implemented by the Central Government, certain amounts became payable as interim relief to all Central Government employees, including the writ petitioners. 4. By an Office Memorandum dated 30th September, 1990 (Exhibit A to the Affidavit of S.K. Barman dated 8th September, 1994), with effect from 1st March, 1970, interim relief at varying rates was payable to the Central Government employees on basic pay not exceeding Rs. 1,250/- per month. The amount of interim relief payable per day ranged from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 45, depending upon the basic pay range of the employees. These recommendations were accepted by the Government of India and by the Office Memorandum dated 30th September, 1970, interim relief was made payable, though it was clarified that the interim relief would be treated sui generis and would not be taken into account for determining any other allowances that may be admissible to the Central Government employees on the basis of their pay. This office memorandum gave rise to an anomalous situation in that the interim relief payable was not included for the purpose of calculation of overtime payments payable under section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, for work done beyond 48 hours in a week. 5. By a subsequent circular, dated 12th October, 1972, it was clarified that interim relief had to be taken into account for purpose of determining the overtime payments under section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948 for work done beyond 48 hours in a week. 6. By Office Memorandum dated 2nd August, 1983, the Government of India directed payment of interim relief at varying rates from Rs. 6. By Office Memorandum dated 2nd August, 1983, the Government of India directed payment of interim relief at varying rates from Rs. 50/- per month to Rs. 100/- per month to employees in different pay ranges. The said interim relief, which was paid pursuant to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, was made payable with effect from 1st June, 1983 and it was provided in the Office Memorandum that the amount of interim relief would be taken into account for determining retirement benefits, but that it would not be counted for any other purpose, i.e., for determining any allowance admissible on the basis of pay or emoluments. 7. By a clarification issued on 9th June, 1988, the Government of India clarified that, on the basis of the decision taken by the Committee of Secretaries in its meeting held on 20th July, 1987, it had been decided with the approval of the Finance Secretary that computation of overtime allowance by taking into account interim relief may be allowed in all cases where the Government employees were governed by the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. 8. The petitioners moved the first respondent under the provisions of section 33-C(2) of the Act by their Applications No. LC-2/753 to 790 of 1986 and No. LC-2/821 to 1217 of 1986, alleging therein that, for the period 1st March, 1970 to 31 December, 1972, the petitioners had worked between 37.½ to 48 hours a week and that the interim relief payable to them under the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission had not been included in their wages which were payable to them for work done between 37.½ hours to 48 hours per week. The second claim was that, during the period 1st June, 1983 to 1st April, 1985, the interim relief payable under the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission had not been included for calculation of the wages for the period of work between 37.½ hours to 48 hours a week. Although another claim was also made in the application about the interim relief not being taken into account for the purpose of calculating incentive wages, this claim is not pressed before me and, therefore, I need not consider it. Although another claim was also made in the application about the interim relief not being taken into account for the purpose of calculating incentive wages, this claim is not pressed before me and, therefore, I need not consider it. It does not appear from the copy of the application or the Written Statement filed before the Labour Court that arithmetical calculations giving the detailed calculation of the wages payable for work between 37.½ hours to 48 hours per week for the two relevant periods, were placed on the record of the Labour Court. The Labour Court heard the parties and, on consideration of the relevant circulars, came to the conclusion that the wages payable during the two relevant periods for work done between 37.½ hours to 48 hours per week could not include interim relief in view of the different Notifications issued by the Government of India and, in this view of the matter, dismissed the claims. Hence, the writ petition. 9. After having heard the learned Advocates appearing on both sides for considerable time, it appears to me that more time was spent by the parties, both in the trial Court as well as here, in making submissions on law than focussing attention on the essential facts. 10. The only issue which needs consideration is : Whether the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission and the Fourth Pay Commission, which were implemented by the concerned Office Memoranda issued by the Government of India, have been complied with and, if so, whether in respect of the petitioners, who are admittedly factory workers governed by the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, the respective interim reliefs payable during the respective periods were includible for calculation of their normal wages for purpose of work between 37.½ hours to 48 hours per week? It is not disputed that interim relief - albeit that it is hedged in with restrictive conditions under the relevant Notifications implementing the recommendations of the two Pay Commissions - was wages within the meaning of section 2(r) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The only question, therefore, which arises is : In respect of a workman whose normal working hours are 48 per week, whether the rate of wages to be paid to him could vary depending on whether he works less than 37.½ hours or between 37.½ to 48 hours, in a week? The only question, therefore, which arises is : In respect of a workman whose normal working hours are 48 per week, whether the rate of wages to be paid to him could vary depending on whether he works less than 37.½ hours or between 37.½ to 48 hours, in a week? This was the only controversy, which was to be answered, but, unfortunately, it has been obfuscated by the long drawn out arguments addressed to the Labour Court. 11. It is a fundamental principle that a contract of employment fixes the rate of wages payable for working hours, which are stipulated in the contract, and any change therein can only be made bilaterally or by operation of a statute. As far as the petitioners are concerned, their normal working hours are 48 and, therefore, their contract would require payment of the prescribed emoluments, including interim relief, for the entire period of their normal working hours. Whether, under the contract of employment, interim relief was includible for payment of overtime wages for work beyond 48 hours per week could have been a matter of debate, but, fortunately for the petitioners, the Government of India itself realised the harshness of the situation and conceded by its two Notifications that for payment of overtime beyond the limit prescribed in section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, interim relief had to be included while calculating the rate of wages. 12. Mr. Satpute has strongly contended that the claims were hit by delay and laches and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the same without going into the merits. It is not possible to accept this contention, as no such contention was raised in the Written Statement of the second respondent. In any event, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (Bombay Gas Company, Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva and others)1, (1963)II L.L.J. 608, is a complete answer to the contention. 13. Mr. Satpute relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in (The Clothing Factory, National Workers Union Avadi, Madras v. Union of India and others)2, A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 1383, in support of his contention. I am afraid, the judgment is of no help to the second respondent. 13. Mr. Satpute relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in (The Clothing Factory, National Workers Union Avadi, Madras v. Union of India and others)2, A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 1383, in support of his contention. I am afraid, the judgment is of no help to the second respondent. The judgment of the Supreme Court merely holds that, for work done below the normal working hours under section 59 of the Factories Act, there is no obligation to pay overtime wages at double the rate. Such is not the case in the present writ petition. As far as payment of wages for the period beyond 48 hours is concerned the second respondent does not dispute the position in law or its liability, but merely contends that the liability has already been discharged. When we come to the periods between 37.½ hours to 48 hours per week, this judgment of the Supreme Court is of no assistance. 14. Mr. Satpute also relied on a circular issued by the Government of India dated 21st February, 1974 and contends that a uniform pattern of dividing of all wages by the divisor of 163 had been adopted so as to put on par the employees governed under the Factories Act and those not governed under the Factories Act. The issue really is not about the divisor, but about the numerator. In my view, this fact certainly is of no avail and does not carry the second respondents case any further. 15. Mr. Satpute, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent, strenuously sought to sustain the impugned order of the Labour Court by placing strong reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 30th September, 1970, the Clarification dated 12th October, 1972, Office Memorandum dated 2nd August, 1983 and the Office Memorandum dated 29th April, 1985 and contended that these office memoranda and clarifying circular make it clear beyond doubt that interim relief would not be included within the wages for the purpose of calculation of wages between 37.½ hours to 48 hours per week. It is difficult to accept this submission for the simple reason that, on an earlier occasion, in respect of the second respondent Mint itself, this issue had been considered by a Division Bench of this Court, which, by its judgment dated 15th February, 1979 in Special Civil Application No. 1870 of 1973 (per Rege and Jahagirdar, JJ.) in terms over-ruled this contention. This judgment clearly lays down that, between the two periods, viz., the first 37.½ hours and from 37.½ to 48 hours, there could be no change in the rate of payment and whatever the basis for the former, it had to be continued for the latter. In my judgment, the ratio of this judgment squarely applies to the case of the petitioners and the petitioners are, in fact, entitled to be paid for the period of work done beyond 37.½ hours and up to 48 hours per week also at the same rate of wages as paid for the work done for the first 37.½ hours during the week. If interim relief was includible and was included for payment of wages for the first 37.½ hours during the week, then there was no warrant or justification for excluding it for the purpose of computation of wages for the week between 37.½ hours to 48 hours per week. The exclusion appears to be the result of some confusion on the part of the second respondent, perhaps occasioned by the reason of the fact that the second respondent has in its employment two categories of employees, viz., those who are governed under the provisions of the Bombay Shops Establishments Act, in whose case the limits of normal working hours are 37.½ hours per week and employees, like the petitioners, in whose case, the normal working hours are 48 per week. I am not concerned with the former category of employees. I am only concerned with the present petitioners, who are factory workers. Their normal working hours per week are 48 and, whatever be the methodology, the rate of wages cannot become different for work done between 37.½ to 48 hours. The rate at which they were paid for the earlier period up to 37.½ hours per week would have to be maintained for calculation by including interim relief for the periods for work in excess of 37.½ hours up to 48 hours per week. The fact that there are notifications issued by the Government to the contrary is of no avail. Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, prohibits an employer from changing the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule without following the prescribed procedure. The fact that there are notifications issued by the Government to the contrary is of no avail. Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, prohibits an employer from changing the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule without following the prescribed procedure. Item 1 of the Fourth Schedule pertains to "Wages, including the period and the mode of payment". It is not in dispute that no such procedure, as prescribed in section 9-A, has been followed. Section 25-T read with Item 13 of the Fifth Schedule make any act of unilateral change in the wage rates as unfair labour practice punishable under the provisions of section 25-U of the Act. Thus, it is clear that, both on principle and precedent, the workmen were entitled to be paid for the work done by them beyond 37.½ hours to 48 hours at the same rate as paid for the period up to 37.½ hours a week, by including interim relief, notwithstanding the Notifications to the contrary issued by the Government of India. Unfortunately, the learned Judge of the Central Government Labour Court seems to have overlooked this aspect of the matter and thus misdirected himself in rejecting the claim. 16. Thus, it is held that the petitioners are entitled to be paid their wages for work done in excess of 37.½ hours but less than 48 hours per week, during the period 1st March, 1970 to 31st December, 1972 by including the amount of interim relief payable in terms of Office Memorandum dated 30th September, 1970, Exhibit A to the Affidavit of S.K. Barman dated 8th September, 1994. It is also held that, for the period 1st June, 1983 to 31st March, 1985, the petitioners were entitled to be paid their wages, inclusive of interim relief amount indicated in the Office Memorandum dated 2nd August, 1983 annexed as Exhibit C to the Affidavit of S.K. Barman, for work done beyond 37.½ hours, but up to 48 hours per week. From the material on record, it is not possible to ascertain whether, factually, such amounts have been paid to the petitioner-workmen, although Mr. Satpute insisted that such payments have been made. From the material on record, it is not possible to ascertain whether, factually, such amounts have been paid to the petitioner-workmen, although Mr. Satpute insisted that such payments have been made. There is also an additional claim made in the petition that, for the period 1st June, 1983 to 31st March, 1985, overtime payment has not been paid, by including interim relief, for work done beyond 48 hours per week, despite the clarification issued by the Central Government. Here again, Mr. Satpute insists that overtime payment has been paid strictly in accordance with the clarification issued by the Central Government. On the material on record, it is not possible to ascertain the factual aspect of this controversy also which would have to be looked into by the Labour Court. 17. In the result, the rule is made absolute and the impugned order of the Labour Court is quashed and set aside. Applications No. LC-2/753 to 790 of 1986 and Applications No. LC-2/821 to 1217 of 1986 are restored and are hereby remanded to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court No. 2, Bombay, for disposal of the applications in the light of the observations made and conclusions recorded in this judgment. Since the matters have been pending for 8 years, it is in the fitness of things that the Labour Court shall endeavour to dispose of these applications as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. Though, normally, under such circumstances, I would have been inclined to direct the second respondent to pay costs of the petitioners, taking into consideration that much of the confusion was caused by the manner in which the applications were pleaded and taken to trial by the petitioners, I am not inclined to do so. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. *****