Judgment

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. :- The appeal and the Writ Petition No. 40 of 1968 are by the Press Trust of India, while Writ Petition No. 37 of 1968 is by the Indian National Press (Bombay) Ltd. The appeal and the writ petitions challenged the order dated October 27, 1967 issued by the first respondent - the Union of India, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) accepting the recommendations of the Wage Board constituted under Section 9 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (45 of 1955) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - as violating Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India. The order accepting the recommendations in respect of the wages, scales of pay etc. of the working journalists was subject to certain minor modifications therein specified, being modifications which in the opinion of the Central Government did not effect important alterations in the character of the recommendations. The second respondent is the Indian Federation of Working Journalists.

2. At the outset a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the first respondent, which was also supported by the second respondent, that the appeal is not maintainable under Art. 136 of the Constitution, inasmuch as the Central Government which passed the order dated October 27, 1967 is neither a Court nor a Tribunal, and the order passed by it is not a judicial order but a statutory order - a piece of subordinate legislation. It may here be mentioned that caveats were entered into at the time when special leave petitions came for hearing on September 26, 1968, and this Court granted leave on that day subject to the right to urge the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeals. So far as the writ petitions are concerned, an objection has also been raised that as the second petitioner A. B. Nair in Writ Petition No. 37 of 1968 had die during the pendency of the petition, and as an application had been filed in Writ Petition No. 40 of 1968 to delete the name of the second petitioner Uma Shanker Dikshit, the first petitioner in both the petitions being limited companies, the reliefs claimed could only be confined to Arts. 14 and 31 of the Constitution and not to Art. 19 under which the guarantee of fundamental rights is only available to a citizen of India, which the limited companies are not. In order to appreciate these objections it is necessary to set out certain provisions of law and indisputable facts.

3. Under Section 9 of the Act, there is power to constitute Wage Board for fixing or revising rates of wages in respect of working journalists. Once, the Board is constituted it shall, by a notice published in such manner as it thinks fit, call upon newspaper establishments and working journalists and other persons interested in the fixation or revision of rates of wages of working journalists to make such representations as they may think fit (Section 10(1); every such representation shall be in writing and shall be made within such period as the Board may specify in the notice and shall state the rates of wages which in the opinion of the person making the representation, would be reasonable (Section 10(2), After taking into account the representations and after examining the materials, the board shall make such recommendations as it thinks fit to the Central Government for the fixation or revision of rates of wages with effect from a date as may be specified by the Board (Section 10(3)). It is, further, provided in Section 10(4) that in making any recommendations to the Central Government, the Board shall have regard to the cost of living, the prevalent rates of wages for comparable employment, the circumstances relating to the newspaper industry in different regions of the country and to any other circumstances which to the Board may seem relevant.

4. The Central Government had, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9 of the