JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J :—In all these matters, the petitioner-establishment have challenged two orders viz, Nos. 683(E) and 684(E), both dated 31-8-1989, (hereinafter referred to as Orders) issued by the Central Government under Section 11 of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) accepting and giving effect to the recommendations of the Wage Board Report dated 26-5-1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Report ) on various grounds. Order No. 683 (E) deals with wage-scales and grades, and Order No. 684 (E) deals with House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance. The Wage Board was constituted by the respondent 1-Union Government in 1985 under the chairmanship of Shri Bachawat and hence the Report given by it is known as Bachawat Award. Both the orders are challenged on the ground of violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 14,19(1) (a) and (1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners also challenge the amendment of Sections 2 (d) and 10 (4) of the Act brought about by Sections 2 (i) and 3 of Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Constitution of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amending Act") by adding an Explanation at the end of S.10(4) and a Schedule at the end of the Act as being violative Arts. 14, 19(1) (a) and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

2. In order to appreciate the challenges, it is necessary to state a few background facts.

The Act as it was initially enacted was titled the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service)and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (the original Act) since it was confined to the service conditions of the working journalists only. By an amendment brought into force on 21-12-1974, by the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision (Amendment ) Act, 1974, the scope of the original Act was expanded to include the other newspaper employees. Under the original Act, which was confined to the working journalists only, a Board headed by Shri Divatia was appointed under Section 9 of the Act, and the said Board gave its award in May 1957 which is known as Divatia Award. The recommendations made by the said Board and the provision of the Act were challenged by some establishments including some of the petitioners herein, under Article 32 of the Constitution, and these challenges were dealt with in the decision of this Court in Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Ltd., v. Union of India, (1959) SCR 12 : (AIR 1958 SC 578 ) by a Constitution Bench of five learned judges. To this decision, we may have occasion to refer later. Suffice it to say for the present that certain propositions of law which were laid down by this decision were followed not only by the later Wage Boards appointed under the Act but by all industrial adjudicators in the country.

After the Divatia Wage Board, three more Wage Boards were appointed, viz Bhandarkar Wage Board, Shinde Wage Board and Palekar Wage Board in 1958, 1963 and 1975-76 respectively. They gave their respective awards in 1959, 1967 and 1980. They followed the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision of this Court. Then came the present Wage Board, viz., Bachawat Wage Board and its impugned award.

3. Before we discuss the challenges to the impugned award, it will be necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act, the changes brought about in the Act after the decision in Express Newspaper case (AIR 1958 SC 578) (supra) and the propositions of law laid down in the aforesaid decision.

Section 2 (d) defines "newspaper establishment" to mean -

"(d) "newspaper establishment" means an establishment under the control of any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, for the production of publication of one or more newspapers or for conducting any news agency or syndicate; (and includes newspaper establishm