JUDGMENT 1. By consent of both parties the main appeal itself is taken up for finalhearing. The question of law raised by the appellant in this appeal reads thus: "D. The Court below has committed another error of law in finding that therewas no legislative intention to exclude the payment of overtime wages whileenacting S.2(22) of the Act. Further finding of the Court below that in thedefinition of employee under S.2(9) of the Act overtime wages is specificallyexcluded and thus the intention of legislature while enacting S.2(22) to excludeovertime wages also within the fold of 'wages' is clear, is erroneous andunsustainable in law. It is submitted that the overtime work cannot be regardedas either an express or implied term of contract of employment inasmuch asthe engagement of employees for overtime work is regulated by S.51, 54 and59 of the Factories Act. The finding that an employee is expected to doovertime work at the behest of the employer who offers an opportunity andtherefore there is a subsisting contract of employment and payment made byan employer for overtime work is 'wages' for the purpose of S.2(22) of the Actis erroneous. There is no obligation on the part of the employer to offerovertime work and a corresponding duty for the employees to do the saidovertime work. Therefore, the court below should have accepted the judicialpronouncement of the High Court of Karnataka reported in 1990 II LLJ. 195,the High Court of Calcutta reported in 1979 Lab. I. C. 852 and the High Courtof Rajasthan reported in 1991 (2) LLN 1035 [1991 (63) F.L.R. 277] and heldthat overtime wages will not be 'wages' for the purpose of the Act. The findingof the court below, that the overtime work is done in pursuance of the contractof service subsisting between the parties and the said overtime work is inpursuance of the original contract of employment and therefore overtimewages paid for that additional work in fulfilment of the implied term of contractwould be remuneration paid or payable coming within the first part of thedefinition of 'wages' contained in S.2(22) of the Act is clearly illegal. The courtbelow has misdirected itself in relying on the decisions reported in 1974 (1)LLJ. 453 (Bombay High Court), 1979 Lab I.C. 527 (Delhi High Court) and 1981Lab. I. C. 457 (Andhra Pradesh High Court). The courtbelow has misdirected itself in relying on the decisions reported in 1974 (1)LLJ. 453 (Bombay High Court), 1979 Lab I.C. 527 (Delhi High Court) and 1981Lab. I. C. 457 (Andhra Pradesh High Court). It is submitted that the courtbelow, is not justified in discarding the well considered decisions of the HighCourt of Karnataka reported in 1990 (2) LL.J. 195 and the Rajasthan HighCourt reported in 1991 (63) F.L.R. 277." 2. It appears that different High Courts have expressed conflicting opinion on thepoint raised by the appellant in this appeal. The same question was raisedbefore the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 2777/1980 etc. batch. The questionraised before the Supreme Court was whether overtime wages would bewages within the meaning of S.2(22) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948. The SupremeCourt after a survey of the authorities and taking note of the conflict of judicialopinion on the point between several High Courts came to the conclusion thatovertime wages would be wages within the meaning of S.2(22) of the Act. Inview of the opinion now expressed by the Supreme Court in the aboveJudgment namely, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Employees' StateInsurance Corporation 1997 (2) LLJ 700, the appeal has to fail and therefore it is dismissed. C.M.P. No. 444/93 also stands dismissed. No costs.